The only safe prediction I can make is that the superpower will remain intact for most of the year, though my confidence can easily be shaken depending on any unforeseen events.
I'll make a prediction, that anyone who says Biden (or his managers) will try to postpone the election is wrong. If they do, there is your end of the USA and I will not have bought enough ammo.
I agree with you that America's days as a superpower are diminishing, I'll stick with a 2030ish timeline.
Keep at it Max, I wish more people read your work both here and on X.
"These wars don’t need to involve the United States"
Being an imperial power means holding the exclusive right to use force within your domain. Fighting among Indian princes was a British problem even when it didn't directly threaten the interests of the Raj. French Huguenot revolts required the involvement of the Holy Roman Empire. Since the United States claims a globe-spanning empire, there is no conflict that "need not involve" us. The contrapositive is also true: the fact that our elites choose to involve us in everything (we used to ignore Africa but not anymore) implies that they view our empire as global in scope.
The Red Sea is the perfect example of this. We are shooting down $200 kamikazee drones built by people in caves in Yemen with $100K interceptor missiles launched from a naval flotilla that costs $millions weekly to operate. Were this flotilla to be damaged (ala USS Stark) it would take $billions to re-construct in shipyards that couldn't replace a single lost aircraft carrier in less than 2 years. Is there a better picture of imperial military fragility? We think we're projecting strength; we've grossly miscalculated.
When I read Ziehan's End of the World is Just Beginning I really thought he was a kook. I still think he's foolishly extrapolating too far from 1 relatively simple assertion, but I'm less certain than I was a year ago. The Red Sea incidents in particular fit his pattern perfectly.
"2024 will be the last full year the U.S. exists in superpower form."
You're bold, Max, I've got to give you credit for that. Part of me hopes you're wrong, but honestly considering how morally corrupt (seizing children from parents who won't slice off their private parts) and plutocratic (Hunter Biden, Jared Kushner, et al) the Western ruling class has become, maybe it's for the best.
The thing is, the conflicts involving America are less than a fraction of the number of conflicts ongoing. For example, the Myanmar conflict was the third-deadliest conflict of 2023. The U.S. isn't involved. Also, our involvement in Africa is pretty much limited to Somalia. The list of conflicts which actually court America's concern, you could count on one hand.
The collapse of the superpower may not be apparent at the moment, largely because there won't be some dramatic event like the USSR ceasing to exist. But it'll become apparent in retrospect. Suez '58 is still the model I'm sticking to.
The interesting thing is that the U.S. is spending more on defense than ever, yet it's remained below 4% of GDP for 10 years now. This gives you an idea of how much money the U.S. spends in general. At the same time, post-superpower collapse, I don't understand how the U.S. can sustain such high levels of defense spending, especially if the size of the force doesn't match the mission.
For this reason, chronic inflation will become sticky. Unless sacrifices are going to be made, we're going to keep spending, driving up the cost of everything.
The problem is what happens if investors stop buying bonds and cuts have to be made. I suppose spending on healthcare and social security can be made, but there is a problem when you have structural deficits that need correction. It means lower living standards and more social stress. It also means that society becomes less willing to spend money abroad, as we are seeing with Ukraine spending.
It just astounds me how not a single person was held responsible over what happened in Afghanistan. Instead, the collective response was to blame Donald Trump, as if he set them up for failure. I always go back to the resignation of Major General William Garrison, who took responsibility for what happened in Somalia on October 3, 1993, despite the fact he and his task force had been in-country for only a few months for an operation that'd lasted over half a year by that point. Same with Clinton's first Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin. A lot of people thought Aspin was basically sacrificed at the altar, but the point is, resigning in the face of failure was something people just did once upon a time. It was perceived as the cost of having tremendous authority.
Today, we could lose an aircraft carrier and the most that'd happen is the commanding officer gets relieved (assuming he survived). Nobody higher than him would be held responsible, unless they could score a DEI victory in doing so.
What was most unforgivable about the Afghanistan withdrawal was that Biden extended the timeline several months, rather obviously to coincide with the 20th anniversary of 9/11 to score a political victory, and yet it still unfolded so disastrously. Perhaps it's only poetic, but I just wish 13 Americans didn't have to pay for it with their lives. They absolutely cannot blame Donald Trump, but that's what they did.
Vietnam was overall far more devastating, but no American lost their life during the withdrawal. That says something about the kind of people we had leading and fighting back then.
About the ghetto school story - is it any surprise those schools ultimately produce the very people who constitute the political base of the Regime?
I'll make a prediction, that anyone who says Biden (or his managers) will try to postpone the election is wrong. If they do, there is your end of the USA and I will not have bought enough ammo.
I agree with you that America's days as a superpower are diminishing, I'll stick with a 2030ish timeline.
Keep at it Max, I wish more people read your work both here and on X.
Post updated with your remarks and my reaction.
"These wars don’t need to involve the United States"
Being an imperial power means holding the exclusive right to use force within your domain. Fighting among Indian princes was a British problem even when it didn't directly threaten the interests of the Raj. French Huguenot revolts required the involvement of the Holy Roman Empire. Since the United States claims a globe-spanning empire, there is no conflict that "need not involve" us. The contrapositive is also true: the fact that our elites choose to involve us in everything (we used to ignore Africa but not anymore) implies that they view our empire as global in scope.
The Red Sea is the perfect example of this. We are shooting down $200 kamikazee drones built by people in caves in Yemen with $100K interceptor missiles launched from a naval flotilla that costs $millions weekly to operate. Were this flotilla to be damaged (ala USS Stark) it would take $billions to re-construct in shipyards that couldn't replace a single lost aircraft carrier in less than 2 years. Is there a better picture of imperial military fragility? We think we're projecting strength; we've grossly miscalculated.
Big picture... a country with a minimal industrial base and national debt at 100%+ of GDP can not maintain this: https://ubique.americangeo.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/INTERACTIVE-US-military-presence-around-the-world.png
When I read Ziehan's End of the World is Just Beginning I really thought he was a kook. I still think he's foolishly extrapolating too far from 1 relatively simple assertion, but I'm less certain than I was a year ago. The Red Sea incidents in particular fit his pattern perfectly.
"2024 will be the last full year the U.S. exists in superpower form."
You're bold, Max, I've got to give you credit for that. Part of me hopes you're wrong, but honestly considering how morally corrupt (seizing children from parents who won't slice off their private parts) and plutocratic (Hunter Biden, Jared Kushner, et al) the Western ruling class has become, maybe it's for the best.
The thing is, the conflicts involving America are less than a fraction of the number of conflicts ongoing. For example, the Myanmar conflict was the third-deadliest conflict of 2023. The U.S. isn't involved. Also, our involvement in Africa is pretty much limited to Somalia. The list of conflicts which actually court America's concern, you could count on one hand.
The collapse of the superpower may not be apparent at the moment, largely because there won't be some dramatic event like the USSR ceasing to exist. But it'll become apparent in retrospect. Suez '58 is still the model I'm sticking to.
I'll be happy to admit that I was wrong
Interesting. How did Canada manage to recover from it?
The interesting thing is that the U.S. is spending more on defense than ever, yet it's remained below 4% of GDP for 10 years now. This gives you an idea of how much money the U.S. spends in general. At the same time, post-superpower collapse, I don't understand how the U.S. can sustain such high levels of defense spending, especially if the size of the force doesn't match the mission.
For this reason, chronic inflation will become sticky. Unless sacrifices are going to be made, we're going to keep spending, driving up the cost of everything.
The problem is what happens if investors stop buying bonds and cuts have to be made. I suppose spending on healthcare and social security can be made, but there is a problem when you have structural deficits that need correction. It means lower living standards and more social stress. It also means that society becomes less willing to spend money abroad, as we are seeing with Ukraine spending.
It just astounds me how not a single person was held responsible over what happened in Afghanistan. Instead, the collective response was to blame Donald Trump, as if he set them up for failure. I always go back to the resignation of Major General William Garrison, who took responsibility for what happened in Somalia on October 3, 1993, despite the fact he and his task force had been in-country for only a few months for an operation that'd lasted over half a year by that point. Same with Clinton's first Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin. A lot of people thought Aspin was basically sacrificed at the altar, but the point is, resigning in the face of failure was something people just did once upon a time. It was perceived as the cost of having tremendous authority.
Today, we could lose an aircraft carrier and the most that'd happen is the commanding officer gets relieved (assuming he survived). Nobody higher than him would be held responsible, unless they could score a DEI victory in doing so.
What was most unforgivable about the Afghanistan withdrawal was that Biden extended the timeline several months, rather obviously to coincide with the 20th anniversary of 9/11 to score a political victory, and yet it still unfolded so disastrously. Perhaps it's only poetic, but I just wish 13 Americans didn't have to pay for it with their lives. They absolutely cannot blame Donald Trump, but that's what they did.
Vietnam was overall far more devastating, but no American lost their life during the withdrawal. That says something about the kind of people we had leading and fighting back then.
About the ghetto school story - is it any surprise those schools ultimately produce the very people who constitute the political base of the Regime?