America's situation is very similar to that of the decline in the Roman Empire in the 4th century A.D. An empire grown tired and expansion halted, battling external enemies knocking on the door, using mercenaries in battle campaigns, rear-guard battles with internal dissent, the rich evicting the poor from their homes including those of soldiers serving the empire, sops in terms of games to distract an ever more disgruntled population, etc. The result was that the Roman Empire split in two. Is that the future for the USA???

The title of this article is a bit misleading because the American empire has not yet begun.We are still in the early stages of America's growth so the end is not yet upon us. Nevertheless we are presently in great danger and significant change will overtake the country. If we use Roman history as a benchmark to evaluate America's progress, we will find that America is currently experiencing the growing pains of the Roman Republic.In this era Rome's elite had to accept the growing political power of the poorer class as well restrictions on the manner in which it used it's wealth. The Roman elite could not purchase endless acre of farmland for speculative purposes as this drove up the cost of food. We in America will soon witness this control, as excess capital from wall street seek safety in a new round of farmland speculation. We are approaching the era of " ROME"S SOCIAL WAR " and the end of the REPUBLIC, but the Empire phase of the American experience is decades away. America is like a tree about to lose it's leaves in winter but they will grow back in the spring, then and only then will the AMERICAN EMPIRE begin.

In this passage Bob is talking about the American power and economy growth which is going and down and is not a very good news for America. Because America is a country which has a tag of developed country. For maintain this they have to do a lot of hard work. Due to some financial problem I have to sell the car for cash which was my loving one.

During 9/11 Boy George was reading "My Pet Goat" to children, while Dead-Man-Walking Cheney was was at the scene of the crime (in the White House bunker) conducting scheduled, simulated war-games to fool NORAD and the FAA into standing down. Isn't it time we put these guys on trial for treason and mass murder?

GDP is a measure of "market value" of goods and services produced within the country. As such, it underestimates "true" income if the nonmarket transactions are large. In 1980 China still was largely a closed, socialist economy. Thus, 1980 Chinese GDP should be taken with a grain of salt. To use that figure for any comparative study is misleading. Today, Chinese economy is more open and market oriented. Hence, it is quite possible that what was not measured in 1980 GDP is now being counted. GDP statistics is like crime statistics; the increase in it could just be because it is now accounted.

China has benefitted enormously from the liberalized world trade regime in 1990s. Indeed, at the core of Chinese rapid growth lies this unreciprocated easy access to western markets for its exports. Of course, this asymmetry in the abilities has created a large imbalance in trade between China and the US which can not be sustained. The trade between countries is strategic; it is sustainable only if it is causing mutual interdependencies. For how long would the US be willing to accept this if it is not reciprocated by China economically or politically. The liberal world order does not just imply political liberties; it also means liberal trading regimes among nations. I do not think Chinese will kill the goose that lay the golden egg.

What about the the huge political and social differences between the rising US and a rising China? One of the reasons for America's rise as the world's leading power was the fact that she had a free, democratic, and relatively politically UNITED society. The average person looked favorably toward the government and believed he could rise socially on his own strength, unhindered by an overly powerful political class. Contrast that with China today. Does China have that same freedom and unity that were and always have been marked characteristics of the United States during it's rise? Hardly. China has an authoritarian government which cannot trust it's own people and which must constantly crack down on political discord. How can this be a stable foundation for a rising world power? As China's own ancient military classic, The Art of War, says: "Humaneness and justice are the means by which to govern properly. When government is carried out properly, people feel close to the leadership and think little of dying for it." But if there is no humaneness and justice, what then?

"Where you both seem to agree is on the necessity of American power to ensure global order and prosperity."

We have ensured global order and prosperity? Is that a joke?

"That is why I find your point about GDP per capita less than reassuring. Yes, it is true that the average American will be richer than the average Chinese for decades to come -- perhaps forever. But Luxembourg's GDP per capita is already considerably higher than that of both China and the United States. This does not matter geopolitically because there are so few people in Luxembourg."

This is terrible argumentative logic.

Comparing Luxembourg to the United States is an unhelpful exercise; the U.S. has 760x the population of Luxembourg, whereas China has only ~4x the population of the U.S. right now. If current demographic trends continue, also, the ratio of Chinese to American population will actually get narrower, not wider (only 3x more by mid century, for example).

Michael Beckley seems to have already preempted your point about GDP:

"This is not to say that size is irrelevant. Luxembourg’s per capita income is
almost double that of the United States, but its tiny population precludes it
from raising a meaningful army, let alone entering the ranks of the great powers. It is, however, important to recognize that GDP is not synonymous with
national power, and that countries with larger economies do not necessarily
have more resources at their disposal. Half a billion peasants will produce a
large volume of output, but most of it will be immediately consumed, leaving
little left over for national purposes. As Klaus Knorr argued, what matters for
national power is not wealth, but “surplus wealth.” It is therefore significant
that the average Chinese citizen is more than $17,000 poorer relative to the average American than he was in 1991."

I'm afraid I can't take either gentleman very seriously, at least not on the strength of their writing for this article. Their analyses are severely constrained in order to support their arguments. The apparent and projected decline of American power has deeper roots than either have acknowledged, and because they have not acknowledged them, they shed little light on planning for our future.

First, let me caution that economics is not a zero-sum game. It never was. I realize that zero-sum isn't precisely the takeaway from our distinguished authors, but this needs to be nailed down tight. Cooperation can yield growth between trading partners if the playing field is level. Win-win is an obtainable outcome. This should be an obvious point: mineral resources are distributed unevenly among countries, for example, so trade evens distribution and improves economic output between partners.

Now let me itemize some points that are either left unaddressed by the authors in their argumentation, or merely subjected to drive-by glances.

1. The playing field isn't level. China has underslung its currency against the dollar and refused to let it float on world markets. China has also made it very difficult for foreign companies to sell their products in China with all sorts of unusual tactics, such as insisting that the goods be manufactured in China in partnership with Chinese companies, or insisting that intellectual property rights be transferred to Chinese companies, or presenting regulatory hoops which can't be jumped - while we have made it very easy for China to sell its products in the US with almost no reciprocal disadvantages. These factors are hugely, though not solely, responsible for their trade surplus and the US trade deficit. They have resulted in a hollowing-out of industrial production in the US, whose capitalists have consoled themselves with a rapid rise in its service sector, lower wages, consolidations, outsourcing, establishment of monopolies, and enormous profits. This has been good for wealthy investors, but not so good for the health of the US economy, since the middle class is shrinking and losing purchasing power. It's also bad for tax revenues. Result: a declining trend in US economic strength and power.

2. With the US industrial sector in decline, the US depends more on its trading partners, especially China, to manufacture the goods it needs. Can you see how that increases US vulnerability in the face of conflict with countries which supply, say, integrated circuits and electronic devices we can no longer can make ourselves? This weakness, too, is an outgrowth of an unlevel playing field.

3. Perhaps the single largest factor in declining US power is home-grown: reverse socialism. Government has been co-opted to serve wealthy interests ahead of the nation's interests. Government policies written by lobbyists carve out exemptions, special treatment, government-granted monopolies, criminal enforcement of intellectual property (this last is a very new idea, and a dangerous one), a patent system that is frankly out of control and generating debilitating litigation, not to mention barriers to entry into markets and stifling competition. Tax breaks targeting the wealthiest citizens and corporations, taxpayer bailouts and grants and guarantees for corporations which benefit their owners, a two-tiered criminal system (one for the wealthy and one for everyone else), all sorts of mechanisms like these are now being used to cause wealth to flow to the top using government power to get it there. Lobbyists have become so successful in dominating elected politics at all levels, it's not far-fetched to call them our real rulers. Business plans now avoid competition and seek collusion with government, knowing profits (though not innovation or price) will be better if they succeed. The upward flow of wealth, the shrinking middle class and enlarged ranks of the poor, all a direct consequence of government using its power to direct the flow of wealth upward, harms the overall economy and sends us on a downward trajectory. When governance is made to resemble that of a corrupt banana republic, it should be no surprise that the economy follows suit.

4. Consolidation of the defense industry into a few giant contractors has contributed to loss of competition and higher prices for military systems, which means fewer can reach soldiers, sailors and airmen. But that's not the worst of it. The worst is the DoD acquisition policy now permits production to proceed long before a system is meeting its design parameters in testing. This results in: a) vastly more design changes impacting system cost; b) expensive retrofitting of critical changes to already-built systems; and c) necessary insertion of expensive contractor logistics services to handle work that once was done by servicemen and women (they can no longer do it because with critical changes being made to systems long after they are fielded, training and publications never reach them). These practices are a big part of why the F35 or the Navy's Littoral Combat Ships are experiencing runaway costs and performance problems. We're already launching LCS but have yet to finalize designs that pass testing for basic functions such as mine-clearing operations! The risk is enormous, and correcting for deficiencies is expensive as hell when the production line started years earlier. DoD adopted these rules at the urging of defense contractors, who saw an opportunity to generate profit faster. It worked. Defense contractors are making vast sums. But it's not so good for the projection of American power.

5. Peak oil has an influence. Some experts assert that peak oil came and went in 2005. Whether that's true or not, it's incontrovertible that energy costs are both volatile and experiencing long-term growth relative to other commodities. This is important. Our economy needs cheap energy to be robust; in the absence of it, we'll see a decline. Less developed nations are less affected, at least in the near-to-mid term; they're relying more on human labor and less on energy than the US.

6. As a percentage of GDP, the US health care industry has soared. There are only two likely explanations for this trend: a) Americans are sicker; and/or b) monopoly market power is on the rise. There is evidence for both explanations. Need it be said that monopolies are economically stifling? Competition is key to robust economies, but consolidations and ever-stranger stretches of patent law have created and enforced monopolies more in this sector than in most. But it's also true that Americans are sicker. Longevity improvement has stagnated relative to other industrialized nations. Heart disease, cancer, Type II Diabetes and many other illnesses have exploded. We do not need to spend time arguing about the causes here (though it's an interesting topic); we only need to acknowledge that American health is in decline, per capita health care costs are grabbing a bigger share of the GDP, and that's reducing the competitiveness of the American worker and sucking up GDP which could be better used in other sectors.

7. I will argue that one of the trends provoking downward economic strength in the US is the direction in which our mainstream media have been evolving. We're seeing less actual reporting, more entertainment news, more sports. And, not to paint a smiley face on it, more lies. The citizenry is starved for facts, starved for analysis, but instead is fed opinions which comport with the interests of the elites. Candidates aren't pressed at all on the issues; we've turned our elections into beauty contests, where beauty is molded by advertising money. Democracy is weakened by the abdication of the fourth estate in favor of marketing and cheerleading for entrenched elites. With citizens ill-informed, the legitimacy of the government itself is weakened, and that fact has international implications.

8. Hand-in-hand with the corruption of media, our educational system has also deteriorated - except for education which targets the children of the elites. For the rest, our education solutions have been hilarious to the world community. You can't test an education into a child's head, and we have forgotten that a liberal education was once more about teaching children to reason and love learning than to memorize accepted wisdom and to believe it. With mainstream media failing to explain the issues, with education having reoriented itself to teach bland, unchallenging curriculae and relentlessly test for its acceptance, with innovative teachers coming automatically under fire as though they were practicing witchcraft, our citizenry's competence at reasoning and learning has fallen, both in the estimation of other nations and in our own. This trend has encouraged corporations to outsource to get better workers and is a drag on our economy.

9. Criminal fraud has been institutionalized and almost entirely protected in the real estate and financial sectors. This is hugely destabilizing and harmful to our economy, and it's not done hurting us, not by a long shot.

I could go on: The Fed's currency gushing over the past thirty years and the devastating impact that's had on savings, our unfunded wars, our neglect of infrastructure, privatization and mismanagement of government functions, the hugely expensive and utterly futile war on drugs, Washington gridlock and the culture wars... we're a nation trembling from the effect of its many self-inflicted wounds. But this comment is already too long, so I'll be (slightly) merciful.

My point is that our esteemed authors are not even beginning to tell the story of America's decline on the world stage. They're just hitting points that support their arguments, and, sad to say, I view those arguments as supportive of the status quo rather than challenging it or attempting to encourage reforms. Without reforms, it's a safe bet we'll continue on this downward path to reduced relevance on the world stage.

Economics can never be just about economics. With the blinders on, there is no truth in it. Governance, laws, treaties, regulations, politics, education, health, it's all mixed up in it when we attempt to explain large trends in economics. The trick is to accurately see the big picture and, when something goes wrong, to be able to point to the influences responsible for it. That's especially important now, because something is definitely going wrong, and our nation will suffer gravely for it if we don't accurately assess the causes and begin to fix them.

I believe the most fundamental about China are its size and recent history of underachievement.

Therefore, I believe China will grow much more still.

The size is obvious. China is 11 tens Japan.

It is not difficult for them to achieve 20-30% per capita GNP as that of the USA. This is because China used to be rather productive. The West had robbed China for over a century, yes, but they have also shot themselves at the foot. One can suggest that the shooting at its own foot was under the duress and an irrational response to foreign aggression.

We are no longer as virulently racist and they have stopped shooting themselves at the foot. So what is the natural consquence? Resurgence!
To a great part, China's resurgence is really this simply.

China's growth will continue as we will not be as virulently racist again and they will not shoot themsleves in the foot again. I think this is the basic thrust of the current situation re China. China almost certainly will be a great economic and military power. There is nothing to do to stop it from being so. It has a lot of constraint still, so I am not worried.

Taiwan will be another Hong Kong, Tibet and other parts of China will assimilate seamlessly, trade with China will have to be stable. Why can't we get along with such a China. Seems to me that what is happening is already good, better if we won more in trade, but otherwise the best that can be expected is already happening re China.

I hear people say America is in decline. While I do see several industries that used to be primarily American going elsewhere, there are some that are still going strong. A perfect example is the manufacturing of solar panels. We used to manufacture then right here in the U.S,A., but now they're being manufactured overseas for a much lower cost. It's mostly because of the much lower cost of labor.

However, when it comes to a lot of the high end engineering for new technology, it seems to me that a good deal of the innovation is still coming from America.

Overall, I'd say that URGELT has a very good comment on the economics side of things and agree with a good deal of his/her input. The situation in which we now find ourselves doesn't have ane easy fix and it won't be painless.

America is in decline, America is in decline, the sky is falling, America is in decline!

No, I don't see that, not yet at least... the country is at serious risk of decline, but despite the proliferation of Chicken Littles, we've got a long way to go! Take China (aka the boogyman according to how some people talk about it):

China's growth is dependent in large part on American consumers buying the cheap goods produced in China... a decrease in the American economy and of its worldwide stature would lead to a reduction in consumption which means less need for production in China leading to less jobs, and with a real estate bubble already emerging, highly lackluster domestic consumption and an economy that requires the production of 10 - 12 million new jobs every year just to maintain the current employment rate, if America falls China is bound to follow... that of course is without even mentioning workers' demands for higher wages, better working conditions, and the growing discontent with slave-class producing hukou system.

US power and influence are changing, and so the US has to start thinking a of itself a little bit differently than it does now, it needs to be a little bit more real with how it presents itself to its citizens. That said, America still has innovation, we still have top class universities, and we are still very productive and still have many of the strongest and most influential companies in the world.

It seems like one of the only ways that the USA can become financially strong again, and be revered, and respected again is with another great technological breakthrough, but that may not happen again for another decade or so. Hard to say.

The remain a top player in the world, Americas have to continue to seek out higher education and foster more valuable skills. The country can't compete on a pure manpower basis due to its relatively small population compared to countries like India and China, but can stay powerful by producing innovative and highly skilled individuals. A company like Apple is a great example of America's future. For their next great product, the iphone 5 2012, all the design and business strategy is done in the US, where most of the labor and tedious work is done overseas. Personal is also needed in the US to coordinate all the efforts overseas. The more skilled and educated US people become, the more stable USA's future is.