Matt posed an interesting question to us this week, “Do we really need to be on top?” While my answer to this is in the affirmative, I cannot help but tack on my own question, “Yes, but by how much?” I see the serious economic and consumptive threats that come with a challenge to America's economic dominance. I'm not sure about you but it is hard for me to even wrap my head fully around the idea of a world were we were not a global leader. However, I cannot help but think of a statement a peer once uttered in my high school history class, “If the economic dominance of the United States needs to decrease so that the quality of life in developing nations can improve, then in many ways I see that as a worthwhile sacrifice.” Now, I'm not saying that I want us to slip to the bottom of the list, but I cannot help agreeing with her in observing that there are some positives in the flattening world for which a decrease in our supremacy might be warranted.
Take for example, the article The new middle classes rise up in the September 3rd edition of The Economist. This short briefing examines the emerging voice of the growing middle classes in our flattened world, “. . . India and China-and possibly other emerging markets, too-are experiencing the early stirrings of political demands by the growing ranks of their middle classes.” Although this might sound threatening on first glance, taking a closer look at the ideas these groups are challenging is what makes me inclined to make my above-mentioned heretical remarks. The political demands this article touches on are echoes of anti-corruption and increased equality in governance. One example spoken of in particular is the influence of India's middle class in supporting Anna Hazare's hunger strike in New Delhi this past week which were “the culmination of a sequence of huge corruption scandals, from last year's Commonwealth games in Delhi.” As a result of this overwhelming middle class support, the government conceded to pass harsher anti-graft laws. This article puts forth several more examples but they all seem to resonate with a similar idea of giving a voice to the people that they have lacked up until this point. While they may only seem to be small victories, this effect of globalization is no doubt being felt by the individuals within these emerging markets.
So, is this really such a bad sacrifice to make? While I love this country and the amazing opportunities it has given to all of us, sometimes I wonder if we have taken it to too great of an extreme. Number crunching continually proves that the world cannot sustain billions of people functioning at our standard of living, but I don't think such extent is really required. I'm referring to cutting out a small amount of our excess so that others can acquire a few more of their necessities. Just think about what it would mean to those individuals on the other end of the economic spectrum if we tipped the scales a bit; it might mean a small change for us but a huge difference to them.
The United States stands at a particularly precarious position at the moment. While we still remain the dominant economic and military power in the world, cracks are starting to show at the base of our formerly unshakable foundation. Even more so than when Friedman wrote his book, we need to be considering what might happen if we were to fall from our position as world leaders.
ReplyDeleteThe most important thing to consider is, if the United States were to take the cuts that you are suggesting, who would end up picking up the slack. Just because one nation reduces its economic burden on the world, it does not mean that another nation won't just take its place as the dominant power. It would require careful execution to make sure that the wealth we were sacrificing actually went to benefiting those we would wish to be benefited.
I would proposed an alternative solution to this issue of imbalance. The United States could easily find ways to maintain our level of power, yet be more sustainable in how we maintain it. Putting more funding into energy research, infrastructure and other improvements within our borders, instead of spending billions to maintain our military industrial complex, would yield more positive results in the long run. Instead of trying to be the biggest kid on the block, why not be the smartest and the cleverest.
Furthermore, developing sustainable technologies would allow other nations to raise their standard of living as well. Friedman was a little off when he discussed the power of ideas, as he operated under the assumption that there are an infinite number of resources available for ideas pursued. While global economics might not be a zero-sum game, it takes time, effort and the right idea to create more value in the world. These are the ideas we need to focus on finding.
Jennica, I'm glad that my question could help inspire your post, and I think your position is both admirable and one I can agree with to a degree. The reason I asked if we really need to be on top is something I don't think I really did a good job of explaining in class Tuesday, but my feeling is that much of what Friedman has to say in his book, along with much of the rhetoric coming out of Washington, is founded on the premise that the US is, will be, and must be the world's predominant superpower. That's well and good, but what I think people and politicians forget is that being a superpower takes quite a bit of "blood, sweat, and tears", and that if we are to hold our position as hegemon, we should make the choice consciously and follow up that decision with renewed focus and effort to being the best. What we're risking currently is cultural arrogance born of a mere 50 years of dominance, hardly any real amount of time at all and yet many have already internalized the notion of Americans as a singularly gifted people to such a degree that they hold our continued superiority is assured.
ReplyDeleteWhile the idealist in me would love to envision a world where we could simply reduce our consumption and help the developing world raise theirs to livable standards for everyone, I'm coming to realize that things probably won't be easy. Nick has a great proposal, promoting infrastructure and research within our borders, something we'll definitely need if we're to stay competitive 30-40 years out. I'll close by raising one last point - though the military serves as a convenient scapegoat for expenditures, and let's be honest $600 billion dollars each year is an absurd figure to spend on a military, it does serve a crucial role in the world today. While American leadership and power has often been driven by our economy and our cultural dominance, what has ensured all of this has been our military power. For decades, no nation has had a military that can match ours in open conflict, a fact that I guarantee doesn't escape the notice of the rest of the world. As Teddy Roosevelt is famous for saying,"Speak softly and carry a big stick", wise advice for a nation that would be the world leader even into the "flat" era.
The point on military spending is definitely warranted. To show the disparity:
ReplyDeletehttp://schema-root.org/military/budget/military_spending_us_vs_world.gif
That is 48% of the world's overall military spending attributed to the US. The figure is a few a years old, but the budget is in that range. Politicians see it as a politically bad move to reduce military spending because some interpret it as not supporting the troops or giving up the mission. The war zone is more about preserving national security than actual warfare now. There is surely still armed conflict, and I won't deny the bravery of those men. However, we do not need to push new jets to a war that is mostly ground. People should see domestic investment as patriotic since it preserves and strengthens the homeland.
Overall though, I think the U.S. can stand to cut some excess. However, this would be a monumental task to accomplish in the immediate future. You need a culture change in the form of a movement (or amazingly effective commercials!). People would have to see the rest of the world as human beings rather than with the us vs. them mentality.
I do know that we do donate charity, but our actions show more attempt to smother competition for #1. We are installing missile shields in Poland. Does that not seem like a country with paranoia. This article claims it was for Poland's defense:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/world/europe/22biden.html
However, our trade with Poland total is about $4.2 billion imports and exports. Compare that to China which is about $275 billion or even Russia which is around $24 billion for the current fiscal year. I mention these figures because our reliance on them as allies is measured by political and economic ties.
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c4550.html
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c4621.html
Hopefully, our country can see the potential that lies in the rest of the world and realize how much billions others suffer. I've known people's whose lives changed after being in a country like Africa. They see our abundance and their battle with scarcity. People should be willing to have slightly off lawns, less than 10 TVs, and less automobiles if it means a young child can eat and live.
A strong energy system, communication capabilities, and transportation with high train use can allow us to shed extra energy or resources used. We are all identical in basic needs and should understand this planet is all we have.