It is no longer a unipolar World

[Ishaq]

https://www.google.co.za/amp/s/www....ole-in-global-economy-declines-nearly-50/amp/

With the exception of a few brief periods, America’s contribution to the global economy has been falling. In 1960, U.S. GDP represented 40% of global GDP. By 2014, America’s economic contribution had been cut in half.

For example, in 1960, U.S. GDP was $543 billion and global GDP was $1.367 trillion (based on current U.S. Dollars). Therefore, U.S. GDP was 40% of global GDP ($543 billion / $1.367 trillion). By 1980, America’s contribution to the global economy had fallen to 26%. Enter President Reagan and supply-side economics.

During the first term of the Reagan administration, America’s economic role in the world increased substantially, rising to 34% of global GDP by 1985. This was followed by another period of decline, which didn’t improve until President Clinton’s second term. By the time Clinton left office, U.S. contribution to global GDP was 32%. It was downhill from there. Today, U.S. GDP contributes only 22% of the world’s economic output. What happened? Why has America’s role in the global economy declined nearly 50% since 1960?

 

[Undying Poster]

Obviously the major contributor to US decline (in my opinion) was the opening up of markets in places like China and the former Soviet Union. For the most part the world has embraced capitalism and have seen standards of living rise.

I don't really see it as America declining but rather the rest of the world catching up.

 

[TSO]

The US has roughly 5% of the world's population. Take that into account when you think making up 22% of the world's GDP isn't a lot.

 

[uncommon]

well we better spend more on military.

this thread probably bumped lockheed a point

 

[Burning Hammer]

The first two posts kinda nailed it, and you also have to transition from being a producer in literal capitalism. The entire point is to live on capital. How do you live off of capital? Finance and secure safety net of those below you, then they will do the same under them. Capitalism eventually creates a ultra competitive marketplace and we're almost there now but there is an entire world and innovation will not cease to exist even with automation.

 

[mixcontactsport]

The US has roughly 5% of the world's population. Take that into account when you think making up 22% of the world's GDP isn't a lot.

b-b-b-b-b-but I thought China was going to be the next power house of the World, even though they account for roughly 15% of the Global GDP, but makes up about 18.5% of the World's Population as of 2017. The Chinese are taking over...

 

[Ishaq]

b-b-b-b-b-but I thought China was going to be the next power house of the World, even though they account for roughly 15% of the Global GDP, but makes up about 18.5% of the World's Population as of 2017. The Chinese are taking over...

The Chinese are not taking over. However they are growing at a very high rate, and they now wield enormous influence in the world when it comes to trade and politics. This is power and influence lost by the USA.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

surely it had nothing to do w/ the fall of communism and the expansion of the economies in eastern Europe, former Soviet Asia, East Germany, China becoming a communist market hybrid, etc...

It's hard to grow at a sustained rate when you're at the top. Much easier to do so when you start off shit-tier

 

[cincymma79]

Can't wait until china takes over
World will be so much better

 

[djacobox372]

So the world isn't the shit-hole it used to be, am I supposed to be upset?

 

[Rhood]

Since the Chinese are taking over the world, it seems like you need to be tri-lingual in order to get a high paying job.

 

[Gunny]

https://www.google.co.za/amp/s/www....ole-in-global-economy-declines-nearly-50/amp/

With the exception of a few brief periods, America’s contribution to the global economy has been falling. In 1960, U.S. GDP represented 40% of global GDP. By 2014, America’s economic contribution had been cut in half.

For example, in 1960, U.S. GDP was $543 billion and global GDP was $1.367 trillion (based on current U.S. Dollars). Therefore, U.S. GDP was 40% of global GDP ($543 billion / $1.367 trillion). By 1980, America’s contribution to the global economy had fallen to 26%. Enter President Reagan and supply-side economics.

During the first term of the Reagan administration, America’s economic role in the world increased substantially, rising to 34% of global GDP by 1985. This was followed by another period of decline, which didn’t improve until President Clinton’s second term. By the time Clinton left office, U.S. contribution to global GDP was 32%. It was downhill from there. Today, U.S. GDP contributes only 22% of the world’s economic output. What happened? Why has America’s role in the global economy declined nearly 50% since 1960?

America's % has decline because much of the rest of the world has developed. Which would be fine had our government hadn't funded that development at the expense of the American working class through shitty devised and poorly enforced trade deals

 

[AviatorShades]

Tonal languages should be banned under the geneva conventions

 

[JonnyRingo84]

https://www.google.co.za/amp/s/www....ole-in-global-economy-declines-nearly-50/amp/

With the exception of a few brief periods, America’s contribution to the global economy has been falling. In 1960, U.S. GDP represented 40% of global GDP. By 2014, America’s economic contribution had been cut in half.

For example, in 1960, U.S. GDP was $543 billion and global GDP was $1.367 trillion (based on current U.S. Dollars). Therefore, U.S. GDP was 40% of global GDP ($543 billion / $1.367 trillion). By 1980, America’s contribution to the global economy had fallen to 26%. Enter President Reagan and supply-side economics.

During the first term of the Reagan administration, America’s economic role in the world increased substantially, rising to 34% of global GDP by 1985. This was followed by another period of decline, which didn’t improve until President Clinton’s second term. By the time Clinton left office, U.S. contribution to global GDP was 32%. It was downhill from there. Today, U.S. GDP contributes only 22% of the world’s economic output. What happened? Why has America’s role in the global economy declined nearly 50% since 1960?

what the op is showing isnt inherently a bad thing is it?

it doesnt even mean that our productivity is falling; it only means that our trading partners are catching up economically. was there even a way to prevent this in a peaceful world post ww2? would you even want to if you could?

 

[HIMBOB]

b-b-b-b-b-but I thought China was going to be the next power house of the World, even though they account for roughly 15% of the Global GDP, but makes up about 18.5% of the World's Population as of 2017. The Chinese are taking over...

About 400 million out of poverty in 10 years. Its going to happen only question is when.

 

[HIMBOB]

surely it had nothing to do w/ the fall of communism and the expansion of the economies in eastern Europe, former Soviet Asia, East Germany, China becoming a communist market hybrid, etc...

It's hard to grow at a sustained rate when you're at the top. Much easier to do so when you start off shit-tier

Would be true if you took out "at a sustained rate" but till then i disagree.

 

[PorkPiePusher]

It wasn't just the US that declined, the share that the (current) EU states have had in global GDP has also declined due to the increase of the share of China and other countries. Interesting that Canada and Japan have dropped off though.

https://ibb.co/eHyJBv

 

[Vagitarian]

Tonal languages should be banned under the geneva conventions

So should a language that has an extensive list of grammatical rules and exceptions for all of them.

 

[Satsui Ryu]

Being one of the only major nations to come out unscathed from WW2 while others were in shambles contributed to our economic status through the mid 20th century. Eventually the other countries caught back up.

 

[Bloodworth]

8 years of Obama, ever deal he made had the u.s. spending and giving away more then he would evet get back.
Because Americans were so bad, they are obligated to give everything away