Whether you agree or not, the numbers don't lie and they are impressive
In 1990, the gross domestic product of the United States represented 25% of the world total. Despite the rise of China, the United States still accounts for 25% of the world's economic output.
Compared to its G7 counterparts, a group that includes Japan and Germany, the U. S. share is growing. Adjusted for purchasing power, the U. S. accounts for 51 percent of G7 GDP, up from 43 percent in 1990. U. S. income per capita was 24% higher than Western Europe's in 1990. Today it is 30% higher. Between 1990 and 2022, labor productivity (output per hour worked) increased by 67% in the U. S., 55% in #Europe, and 51% in Japan. U. S. spending on research and development has increased over the past decade to 3.5% of GDP, well ahead of most other countries. America spends 37% more on education per student than the other 23 wealthy #OECD countries, and 34% of Americans have completed higher education, a proportion exceeded only by Singapore
Do you know these figures about the United States that prove that this country is not in "decadence"?
Yes, numbers but lie, but absent context they don't tell the complete story. Indeed, to some extent they tell a misleading story. Such is the case here.
To cite but one example, the United States spends 37% more on education per student than the other 23 wealth OECD countries. What that does not tell is what that money is being spent on and to what effect.
Education funding includes student meals, COVID costs - the latter of which were sent by the government but not necessarily used by educational institutions but rather sit in accounts to cover teacher pensions - and a host of other uses that do not necessarily benefit the student. Thus, a recent study found that a breathtaking mere 8% of 8th graders - that is junior high school in the United States - are up to standard in their knowledge of history and civics. Only 11% are up to standard of reading and writing.
Put simply, the USA has shown an enormous capacity to spend oceans of money. The results, on the other hand, fall far short of the inputs.
For the time being that is not that serious as the USA lives off the patrimony of students who graduated in earlier years and decades. Though even here it must be added that student test scores have been on the decline for about two decades. However, the long term implications of this are positively frightening.
In terms of reading, math and science, while American children are being increasingly taught that gender is a matter of individual choice and not biology, Chinese students are being taught serious math and science skills. This, suffice to say, does not bode well for America's future.
Thus there is a weirdly - and I am sure unintentional - quasi-Marxist formulation to this argument. It seeks not to judge by cultural and moral standards, but my econometric standards alone. Suffice to say, man is more than the sum of his parts.
Having thus painted a grim picture, it is, however, necessary to step back and gain some historical perspective. To speak of America's (or the West's) decline and fall is a bit premature. To borrow a line, "we know not the day nor the hour."
The USA (and the West) have been through cycles of rise and fall and rise again before. In the case of the USA, in the 1860s, the USA fought a civil war in which more Americans died than the nation lost in both world wars and the Korean War combined. Yet the nation endured the bloodshed and emerged a powerful - and arguably more moral - nation.
Similarly, in the 1960s and 1970s the USA endured a period of cultural and political turmoil not unlike the current age. Soaring crime rates, urban decay, declining academic standards, campus violence, race riots, 4 failed presidents (Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter), several high profile assassinations (President Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy), an endless and controversial war (Vietnam.) They were not decades of peace and prosperity and yet the nation recovered and prospered in the booming 1980s and 1990s.
This also to keep in mind that in the best of times - the 1950s, the 1980s, the 1990s, for example - not everything is good. In the worst of times - the 1860s, the 1960s, the 1970s - not everything is bad. It is rather the preponderance of the times and the national mood. Thus Dickens, "It was the best of times. It was the worst of times."
It is the variables that matter and those are hard to gauge. Technology being one factor. In the period 1900 to 1990, the predominant technologies were mass media - books, movies, radio, television. These compelling people of diverging viewpoints to view the world through more or less the same prism. Thus holding together to varying degrees a national cultural consensus.
The current technologies - the Internet, cable, social media, etc. - have a splintering effect. An individual need only pick up their I-phone and they will be fed the information they choose and thus, unintentionally perhaps, be told what they want to hear. In this context the center may not hold, and that is worrisome.
Suffice to say there is much to suggest that the USA - and the West more generally - are in decline. This has various historical and philosophical precedents and there is, as noted, no way to know how things will turn. The current era could be a high tech repeat of the 1960s and 70s, or it could be the end time.
The bottom line being that there is no way to be sure. The only thing that can be done is that the individual is morally obliged to hold himself/herself to the highest standards, academic and moral.
Yes, we may have to qualify these figures, but they are still impressive, while Europe has regressed, the United States has managed to stay the course and even continue to widen the gap with Europe and others.
Even with the rise of China, the US has been able to maintain its position in the world economy.
For education I don't know the details but 34% of Americans have completed their higher education, a proportion surpassed only by Singapore, and what you have described the decline in level etc. is also important in Europe.
The US is also the most advanced country in terms of technology, if we look at it well even China is far from having the predominance in technology that the Americans have.
There is also the US trade deficit which has been reduced. Which is a good thing.
And of course thanks to all this the Americans have the most powerful army in the world and by far, no country can match it.
So if the US is in decline, I think many countries would like to be in decline like the US.
Of course I know that not everything is perfect, that there are surely many things to improve, but honestly compared to other nations in the world, it remains incredible.
Well, that is an interesting formulation. The standard of excellence that you set is, as I mentioned, merely econometric. It is an oddly quasi-Marxist analysis. As I say, there is more to men and nations than merely the numbers.
Even more interesting, you judge not by an absolute standard, but rather by a relativistic one. "Well, you may not be very good, but at least you are not as bad as those guys."
There may be something to be said for that given that man is not given to perfection. Still, judgment must be made against a standard of excellence and not merely against the mediocre.
Besides, as Burke said, "To make our country be loved it must be lovely." Suffice to say, it is hard to love decadence because it is better than someone else's decadence.
You are obliged to compare the United States with the other nations of the world, or if not you compare the performance of the US with what? It is by comparing the United States with other nations of the world that you can see the performance of the United States. And in this analysis, the United States remains the first economic, technological and military power in the world, it is certainly not the work of a people under-educated, living in poverty, etc.
On your last point first, one of my favorite quotes is: "The optimist believes we are living in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears that he is right." That pretty well explains me.
As to your earlier point, yes, comparisons need to be made. Certainly in an international context they need to be made as the international arena is the realm - however much we may wish it otherwise - moral considerations tend to fall in abeyance.
You have made a reasonable measurement of the comparative position of the states of the world. Though I might quibble a bit on some points and details, but on the whole you make a reasonable comparison and analysis.
However, there is that and then there are the standards to which a nation should hold itself and against which it must judge itself. This PARTICULARLY in the absence of such standards in the international arena as powerful states will only be imitated if they are seen as moral states. Otherwise they will be objects of competition and resentment.
As it is, right now, as I mentioned, the USA - whatever your appreciation of its material accomplishments - is experiencing a period of social and cultural tumult. As noted, this is not the first time - see also the 1960s and 70s.
However, the polling is pretty clear. Patriotism is in disrepute. The schools are fighting over whether or not parents should be told if their minor children are getting sex change therapies. Crime is soaring such that it is unsafe to walk at night even in major downtown areas of places like New York City, Chicago and San Francisco.
The list goes on. (Also, to repeat, this may be getting intensified by the unintended effects of technology. Man made his technology and yet appears that he may now less control it than be controlled by it. The USA may be a technological innovator, but particularly in the current cultural context that may be - at best - a VERY mixed blessing.)
The bottom line is that while your analysis is not altogether unreasonable, its' focus is too narrow and absent a wider moral context. As a geopolitical analysis, I would argue that you make fair, though not undisputable, points. On the broader question of "decadence," however, there is much that you are leaving out - analytically, philosophically and historically - of your conclusions.
I will surprise you but I will watch the coronation of King Charles III, the French are full of enthusiasm for the British monarchy. I think there is a nostalgia lol. We can only be admiring what this monarchy represents. If you ever watch the coronation tomorrow, think that 10 centuries of history are looking at you.
As Ernest Renan, who was a fervent republican in his youth, wrote a very critical book on the French Revolution saying that it had been the cause of a moral weakening of France. He had written "The day when France cut off the head of her king, she committed suicide" and in his book he said that for him the French had lost the sense of self-sacrifice and sacrifice since the prevalence of, and I quote, "Rousseau's false politics".
For Renant the French revolution by exalting the individual and by recognizing him an existence and specific and abstract rights, the revolution has separated the man from his past and his future. The individual being more considered than a social atom is disengaged from the temporal line of his ancestors and his descendants and from the historical meaning in itself.
He also writes "the revolution creating A code of laws that seems to have been made for an ideal citizen, born a foundling and dying a bachelor; a code that makes everything life annuity, where children are an inconvenience to the father, where all collective and perpetual work is forbidden, where moral units, which are the real ones, are dissolved at each death, where the wise man is the egoist who arranges to have the least possible duties, where man and woman are thrown into the arena of life on the same terms, where property is conceived, not as a moral thing, but as the equivalent of an enjoyment always appreciable in money, such a code, I say, can engender only weakness and smallness."
Forgive me, I am moving away from the English monarchy, but it is to better return to it, because as a Frenchwoman, I know what symbolically represents this great English monarchy which makes link with the past, with the history and the present, in short it is a politically unifying link.
Omigosh!! I won't tell your friends and relatives, but you are sounding more British every day!!! Next thing you know you will be ordering tea and crumpets for a meal!!!
Renant makes a solid point and I don't disagree. By the way, just for fun, if you have not already, you should read Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France." Okay, so he was no fan of that revolution you guys pulled off, it is still a magnificent work of political philosophy and he makes many of the points Renant made.
I have never read this book by Mr. Burke, I must do so.
Haha whatever you want but not tea, I'm not a big fan, but I'm afraid that my British side will be quickly erased by my French side which seems to me more preponderant haha, but thank you not to say anything to my family, they could disown me.
I wish you and your family a great weekend, is your son still playing baseball?
Well, the French side definitely has its' advantages. Champagne beats tea in my book.
Oh, and yes, your secret is safe with me.
Anyhow, watching the coronation right now, but in a day of contrasts, I will leave here to take BOTH sons - they now both play - to their weekend Little League games. I am on duty, don't ya know.
All the best to you and yours' and have a great weekend.
I would largely concur Nightdrot. Of the points you make I think tailoring feeds to the individuals taste is the most alarming as it sets up a confirmation cognitive bias. That is a serious issue.
Similarly Australia has a problem with rising spending on education and falling student results correlating. One of our TV stations did a longitudinal "study" pitting grandparents, parents and high school graduates against each other in basic maths. The grandparents and parents easily beat their younger generation rivals who were not ashamed of their incapabilities. One girl merely wrapped up the results as indicating she needed to find an accountant or engineer to marry :).
A large part of the problem is that neo-marxism demands social topics to be taught (indoctrinated?) and crowds out the three R's. Another problem is that boys and girls have different learning modes so teaching can be sex disadvantaged and I think that has been done.
Another aspect that I worry about is the mental well being of the children. If home life is emotionally bad then you can expect the kiddie to have more difficulty because there are other things in the mind. High and rising divorce rates could well have negative education effects. If I need to learn something I take care to put myself in a good emotional state and to self-generate enthusiasm for the topic. It makes my learning easier.
I do think English has always been taught badly and I am still bitter at that part of my education. It was taught to appreciate literature and creative story telling. What should have taught is writing concise instructions and pertinent letters/emails i. e what you need in the workforce.
However I am more sanguine than you. For most people/jobs percentages is about the highest level of math needed. So long as the top tail is still good it possibly doesn't matter about the average that much. In fact I have noted that math uni grad lose their math pretty quickly. As a crappy engineer I use more math than math grads in IT. Always surprises me.
@RavVid Well, as far as this is concerned - "As a crappy engineer I use more math than math grads in IT." That's good, just don't ask me to drive over a roadbridge that you engineered. (That was a joke. Actually, my father was an engineer and got the patent - which he had to give to Ford Motor Company - for the self-restraining seat belt.)
As to you being more sanguine than me, as the saying goes, "The optimist believes we are living in the best of all possible worlds - and the pessimist fears that he is right."
Thanks for collating those stats Julie4, it certainly does not show a decline.
I've mentioned Zeihan before and, while I have caught out a couple of not-quite-true factoids in the 'The End Of The World Is Just The Begining' it is convincing on the very favored position geography has given the US. I find it difficult to see the US in long term decline from your stat citations and from Zeihan's geopol analysis.
It seems to me to be still true that the rest of the world needs the US more than the US needs the rest of the world - including China peversely.
China is heavily dependent on the US and Europe buying it's shit but equally US and Europe are heavily dependent on China manufacturing shit. It tends to be asserted China is highly advanced but that doesn't seem to be true. They will not get current generation chip lithography and support for the -1 generation lithography they have has been withdrawn by Japan & US.
It is analogous to Europe being highly dependent on Russian gas but still fighting a war for Europe by proxy in Ukraine. If there is a war for Taiwan and, more importantly, the sea passages between the South China Sea and the Pacific, will trade continue? Risky in contested sea passages.
I would expect US to stop supporting Chinese manufacturing as a result of Xi's aggressive stance. What do US citizens think I wonder?
Yeah, the China thing is just propaganda from the insecure Chinese government.
As for the rest of it however, I agree with what nightdort, or whatever his name is said, that the numbers don't tell the whole story of what's actually happening on the ground. Just because the US is doing better than other countries, doesn't mean it isn't going into decline. It still has the lowest standard of living of any developed country.
As for the Education thing, a lot of money is being funneled into degrees for illegal Mexicans and pension raises for teachers or stupid liberal arts and diversity courses, instead of going towards things that actually matter and actually help students.
26.4K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
They may spend more on education but the kids are graduating behind the other industrialized countries. I don't see how we could have a high GDP since there is nothing that is made here except for pillows and car floor liners. There is a container ship bigger than 3 football fields that goes back and forth between LA and China. It comes here practically awash in Chinese made goods and goes back to China practically empty
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
