Vote
18 Total Votes
Depends on how you define "fall". Do you mean that the U.S. will decline in terms of international influence, economic prosperity, military might, and/or the ability to project military might overseas?
Or, do you mean that the U.S. as a nation will cease to exist?
I mean will we fall into a decline that at the end will have us fall meaning the usa ceasing to exist.
The "United States of America" will fall, there is no doubt about it, but it will not be "destroyed", rather it will change to something greater.
Who knows
In my opinion, during the coming age of scarcity (5 - 20 years), most lazy western nations will quickly shed most of their population due to mass starvation and extreme survivalist violence. After this adjustment period, when the population reduces itself to a pittance of its original level, the U.S. will continue on as did Europe after the black death or the fall of Rome - a state somewhere between the stone age and medieval Feudal Europe. Good times....
@cludwig In the age of scarcity, its the poor nations that will starve to death. The ones that have the money, mainly western developed nations, will be able to feed their population at the expense of the underdeveloped nations. To the developed world, it will be nothing more than economic hardship.
I disagree 58539672. Poor nations are better equipped to deal with scarcity because their populations are already living it. For instance, if there is no food in a grocery store in a poor nation, the people are more experienced and flexible with regards to exploring other options. In America however, when the grocery stores go empty, people will likely go Lord of the Flies first before growing food by their own hands. In many ways, it will be more challenging for people in Western Nations to revert to a simpler lifestyle being that vast quantities of farmland have been lost/paved over by urban and suburban development.
@cludwig That literally goes against how the global economy works. If their is a shortage of supplies, be it food, oil, or what not, then the price of those supplies goes up. Those nations that have money will be able to afford them while those nations that have little won't. This is basic supply and demand economics.
Your statement is correct when applied to globalism. However, in an age of scarcity, globalism will be one of the first things to die. Economies will become more localized during an economic collapse. Thus, those economies that are energy dependent will suffer the most. You cannot stock the shelves at a Walmart and stock the grocery stores with goods from thousands of miles away during a collapse where energy costs soar.
@cludwig They can and they will. Low supply does not cut off all demand (including with energy costs). If the price of energy goes up, then only the wealthy will be able to use it. This reinforces my earlier statement of wealthier nations fairing better in such a situation than poorer ones. There is no correlation between dwindling supplies and the localization of the economy. Globalization will not die.
I had this discussion with a friend of mine who was a ship's Master for the Maerske Line (mega-container ships) for many years. He made the assertion that if the price of oil was to triple, the ships would simply stop running. Yes, perhaps the rich will be able to afford to keep a smaller version of Globalism alive for their own needs, assuming the poor don't rise up and take what they need by force. A saying from a movie comes to mind on this issue. It is easier for a poor man to become rich, than a rich man to become poor.
Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and 