I've just finished watching the chinese CCTV's produced historical documentary series "Rise of Great Nations 大国崛起", which talked about the rise of 9 great nations over the last 500 years, including Portugal, Spain, Holland, Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, USA.

I'm quite interested in America's history, because despite having just a short history, it has managed to develop so rapidly to become the world's leading and most powerful nation in the 20th and 21st century. Inheriting from a disastrous cut-off of trade with Britain after the independence, America was so isolated in terms of economy. But it managed to industrialize so rapidly. Working on the basis of the US constitution, but later a civil war in 1860 which almost fragmented the country, America seemed to have undergone a difficult and unique path of modernization.

Following the path of free-market economy, it managed to overtake Europe as the leading Industrial power by 20th century. But in 1928, the great depression almost devasted the country. Luckily, under the New Deal by Rooselvett, the American economy began to pick up again. After WWII, it emerged itself as the most powerful nation on earth.

By 1990s, while the other countries were still busy developing, America became the first country to undergo the Information revolution (probably the 3rd industry revolution), rapidly transforming the society. Just like the American Inventor Thomas Edison invented the Light Bulb in the late 19th century, little did we know that US was already going into an age dominated by electricity. The same goes for the late 20th century, where US was already going into an information technology age.

I'm sure there are many American members here who know better about American history than me.

1. How did America, with just a short history, manage to develop itself to be the leading nation in the world during the 20th and 21st century?

2. Was the reason due to immigration, where it absorbed the best nutrition from Europe (mainly industrial revolution) and managed to develop itself?

3. Or was the reason for its success due to its constitution and democracy?

4. How did America became the most technology advanced nation by 20th and 21st century?

5. What was the secret of its success?

I can say United States become world superpower because they use the talent of the Jews ,the nation like France ,Spain ,Germany,Holland and Great Britian failed to become World Superpower because they are AntiJews ,Have Germany use talent of Jews instead of Halocaust ,they shall be world power by now ,Have Mongol empire use the talent of Jews they shall rule more longer, many of American talents like Soros have Jewish blood,they lean a lot from the Jewish.

^^Haha what, are you serious?

Good Morning!

I'm not an expert by any means, but here are my opinions based on my limited understanding.

1. How did America, with just a short history, manage to develop itself to be the leading nation in the world during the 20th and 21st century?

The short answer is that Europe was tearing itself apart in World War I & II. The U.S.A. ramped up it's industrial production to supply armaments for the conflict and because all the new manufacturing technologies were state of the art for the time. Another factor is the enormous natural resources that are available in the U.S.A., because these resources don't have to be imported, they can be easily obtained.

2. Was the reason due to immigration, where it absorbed the best nutrition from Europe (mainly industrial revolution) and managed to develop itself?

Certainly immigrants provide much energy to the country; the U.S.A. has always been known as a nation of immigrants. Even today, many Americans have immigrant ancestors within two or three generations. Some of my immigrant ancestors worked on the transcontinental railroad, and then settled down in the American West. There are many stories of people fleeing poverty or oppression in other countries who came to the U.S.A. My ancestors were no exception.

Because of the fact that the U.S.A. offered a sanctuary there was a great influx of Jewish scientists from Germany in World War II. That war may have had a very different conclusion if these scientists had stayed in Germany. Immigrants are certainly a factor in American success.

3. Or was the reason for its success due to its constitution and democracy?

The U.S.A. got lucky early in it's history with some effective and honorable leaders. The constitution was set up with an eye for checks and balances, so that ideally, no branch of the government had too much power. There are specific rights and powers given to the Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches of the goverment. There have been abuses of course, but it seems to have worked rather well overall. For more information on the American constitution you may go to: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

The fact that the populace are allowed to vote for leaders has also worked fairly well overall - although certainly people are sometimes mislead by a famous name, an eloquent speaker or a handsome face. Thankfully, even if there's a leader that is not effective, they can't do too much damage because their power is limited by the constitution. Aside from electing leaders, many concepts, projects and ideas are voted on. Ordinary individuals can truly affect local politics just by speaking out. This gives ordinary people the feeling that they matter, and they can see the effect of their actions (I am speaking from personal experience here).

4. How did America became the most technology advanced nation by 20th and 21st century?

There was a lot of energy in the country in the mid-1800's, the U.S.A. now stretched from 'sea to shining sea' and it seemed there were no limits to what a man could accomplish. The gold rushes in Colorado, California and Alaska encouraged men to migrate to the other side of the country. Families that had nothing back in Europe could become landowners with a little hard work. The West was wide open and a family could obtain as much land as they could farm just by occupying it. A man could become wealthy and respected by working hard and having the courage to see his project through. The free enterprise system gives the successful entrepreneur immediate rewards. Free enterprise is an effective system for developing an economy, and this wide open atmosphere gave a lot of encouragement to free-thinkers and inventors.

Steel workers and manufacturers became the new heroes of the country. The mills that were built reflected the highest quality, although now much of our heavy manufacturing comes from abroad and much is being 'outsourced' to other countries.


5. What was the secret of its success?

A combination of all of the factors you mentioned:

Great natural resources
Immigration from all over the world
The energy of a people who believe they can do anything.
Freedom to become whatever you want to be regardless of birth
Freedom to choose your leaders and vote on issues of concern
Belief in a "manifest destiny'

Without all these factors in place would the country have developed so quickly? Probably not. Other countries in the Americas who have struggles with coups and/or corrupt governments have not been as successful as the United States and Canada.

I have often heard China called the 'sleeping giant.' With the proven inventiveness of the Chinese people, I can't wait to see what will develop there in the coming century.

Thanks for posing this question, it was interesting to ponder.

What a great reply that was, well-done Liu Xiao Mei!

Maybe the only thing I can add that he didn't touch on was the outstanding success of the USA's free market economy. I really believe it contributed greatly to the country's growth. Of course, the power of the free market was enhanced by the other policies going on at the same time (which Liu mentioned).

You know what, I know how the U.S suddenly become a super power...
All the other big countries crashed and burned during WWII and U.S was hardly touched, that's how.

Actually, US seemed to hate immigrants for most of her history, starting with the Alien and Sedition acts, to the anti-Catholic mentality, and the Nativist movements, including the KKK, who reached huge popularity during the early 1900s.



Seclusion. Separated from the rest of the world by two oceans, the US remained exempt from the wars and conflicts of the old world, allowing them to progress while everyone else is killing each other. For example, no civilian city was bombed during the course of WWII, and the US infrastructure remained 100% intact. Look at Germany, England, or Russia, whose life lines and factories were constantly threatened. European nations destroyed their own infrastructure, setting them back decades.

That is overemphasing the role of Jews (who did contribute significantly) and underemphasising the role of other migrants.

Early Jewish immigration to America was far outnumbered by other migrants from Europe who suffered persecutions - notably, the Puritans/Quakers from England, Huguenots from France.

During War of Independence, the Jews numbered around 2,000 in America.

Anti-semitism continued until early 20th century. as reflected in Gregory Peck's film Gentleman's Agreement and Robert Mitchum's film Crossfire, both released in 1947.

America's success is the result of all her people, not just any single segment.

I think there's a lot of points that were already mentioned. Europeans destroying themselves greatly helped the US. However, in the long run having a lot of resources, land and manpower will enable a state to do great things.


The US may have disliked immigrants, but you will have to agree that it accepted more immigrants than most nations in the world. There was some resistance to immigrants coming from southern Europe. Then resistance to immigrants coming from Eastern Europe and resistance to immigration from East Asia. However that didn't stop the US from accepting huge numbers of immigrants. Eventually many of those immigrants assimilated and they became Americans, although it generally took generations. What other country proudly states on one of its largest monuments that it is willing to take in other country's leftovers? It's on the Statue of Liberty, one of the first things immigrants see while immigrating to the US.

When the US gained more territory to the west one tactic used by the US government to populate its western area was an agreement that if a man and his family settled in an area for at least 5 years and lived on that land then it can become his. For many people it was their first chance to own land. Before then owning land was a privilege enjoyed by few. Especially for people from Eastern Europe where feudalism was still very strong and the land was in the hands of the elites while the serfs worked on it.

About the democracy first you will need to understand that initially the only people who could vote were white male land owners. Just being a white and a male person did not count. You needed to own land. There was a reason for this. The US founding fathers, and I think it was specifically Alexander Hamilton (I forget), who believed that the people who voted also needed to have a lot at stake in the voting process. I believe the correct term was to have "vested interest" in the outcome of the vote so that they would take it more seriously. Personally I think it was a smart move for the beginning. Of course now most US citizens over the age of 18 could vote.

As it was mentioned before by another poster above me being relatively isolated and having large amounts of resources also helped. The US used to be one of the world's largest exporters of oil. In fact at one point it exported most of the world's oil. It is still one of the world's major producers of oil. It just doesn't export as much of it anymore for obvious reasons. The US simply has large amounts of just everything. Large amount of farmland. Large numbers of rivers that could be used to transport goods. Large amount of timber. Large amounts of minerals and a large population due to immigration.

But when we think of the US most people automatically think that it all developed pretty much everywhere at once. That was not the case. Historically the US northeast was always the most developed and industrial. They were also well connected with the northern Midwest (areas like Chicago and St. Louis). The northern Midwest grew up mostly by servicing the more industrial northeast and also serving as a stop between the northeast and the west coast. For example, Chicago grew because it was the center of meat processing which was eventually shipped over to the northeast for consumers. However, areas like the southeast remained rural and underdeveloped for a very long time. Even with the creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority in 1933 the US southeast remained very underdeveloped. It wasn't until the 1960s with President Lyndon Johnson's poverty reduction initiatives that the southeast started to gain a lot more attention from developers. However, even by the 1980s the southeast was behind the rest of the country in development. A slogan was created at the time to try to improve the southeast's image to attract investment. It was called "The New South". By the 1990s the southeast became a prime target for investors because it had a relatively young population and because wages were lower. Companies like BMW, Toyota and Hyundai began building plants in the area.

Main reason I mention this is because it might help us to investigate how the US became a superpower because even though the southeast was part of the US it was not well developed until relatively recently. Historically the southeast was very different from the northeast. The southeast was much more feudal in nature. Slavery is what most people know about its history, however we also have to keep in mind that the southeast's economy had always depended heavily upon agriculture. The society was based upon a few aristocratic families who wielded huge amounts of power within their domain. Very much like lords and kings in Europe.

This is in stark contrast with northeastern US where there had always been steady contact with Europe, and especially Great Britain. The northeast had always been much more industrialized or at least more urban in nature than the southeast. Listen to the accents spoken by people from the northeast. In many parts when the letter "r" is not at the beginning of a sentence they will not pronounce it as an "r" sound familiar to other Americans. It's a testament to their continued contact with England.

From this I think the US also owes a lot to England. Culturally they are much more similar to one another than to, say Mediterranean Europeans. People from more southern parts of Europe are a bit more laid back than people from places like England or Holland. There's always been great amounts of cultural and technological exchanges between the two. It also helps to be able to speak basically the same language. Even after losing its great power status Great Britain in essence tutored the US into taking its place. Take the Bretton Woods conference, for example, that established the new economic scheme that would force the rest of the world's economy (well the ones not in the Communist bloc) into an intertangled mesh. Many of those ideas were British ideas that the US agreed to implement. You'll have to remember that before then each state was basically self sufficient with their own group of trading partners in the form of colonies. They for the most parts excluded each other. If it weren't for the Bretton Woods conference there probably wouldn't be a currency problem between China and the US today because that agreement setup today's scheme of trading and currency valuing. That's how important that agreement was.

In the cultural realm all you have to do is sit down and talk with an American, then go sit down and talk to a southern European. You'll notice that in general Americans prefer to have a larger private space, much more like northern Europeans. To some people they can seem aloof, but it's just a cultural thing.

This quote from a BBC article might help us to understand the US:

"The United States created an environment in which inventive minds had access to easy credit, a willing market and the freedom to dream and create without fear of prosecution or recrimination."

It's from this article Washington diary: Land of ideas

In the US there is a large amount of cooperation between the government, the institutes and the industries. The industries and institutes work together to help find new and innovative ways to do things or new innovative ways to use and implement new techniques or materials. The government helps by giving financial incentives, for example.

Many of the things invented or developed in the US are never really put to great use, but others like their Japanese partners can sometimes find an innovative use for them. Take the electrical motor in Toyota's Prius, for example. After the patents run out Japanese companies sometimes pick up some of the US discoveries and put them to greater use in more innovative ways. There's plenty of other products developed in the US but are used to greater effect by others. Again, I think it could be a cultural or social thing which I, again, think it owes to England. Great Britain, for example pushes out more scientific papers than any other country in the world except for the US. It puts out more scientific work than Japan, which has a substantially larger population and economy.

Theres many reasons why it should be so, but luck and the way the constitution were formed and written is the most significant.

Several of the reasons have already been mentioned, the fact that except for the war in 1812 (Which they lost) they never were involved in the constant conflicts between the great powers of the day is one of the main, if not the most important reasons.
In fact it was the same upheavals and conflicts that insured that the states had a constant flow of immigrants to take over when ever new territories were developed.
Demographically as an example, the states only became self sufficient in manpower for what territory they had in the mid 1750' IE before that the numbers of colonist born in the north Americas didn't replace does who died. so it was ONLY the constant influx of immigrants that could insure the growth of the US.
Because romance aside the life on the trail were extremely hard for all concerned not least pregnant women and small children, which is why mail order bride for the first time in the world developed precisely in the states, the colonist out west had a constant lack of marriageable females until the turn of the century until the outbreak of WW1 in Europe.
This did have one positive aspect, the fact that hores could easily get marriage and were not seen in the same hypocritical light that their sisters in the old world.

As to the constitution it is worth nothing the safeguards it has inbuilt more or less on purpose against dictators and to much power concentrated in to few hands.
One of the most important and one that Kemal Atatürk got into the Turkish constitution in an even more overt form were that the armed forces of the country swore allegiance to the CONSTITUTION, NOT the political leadership.
This in a way insure (especially in Turkey) that the army saw itself as guardian of the law that the country were built up around, and in so doing eased the temptation of the military to take control in permanent dictatorships.
The US Civil War is a good case in point, the established military and the officers saw the move to federalize and centralize power in the states as unconstitutional, and at the same time saw the need to protect the US as a nation as almost important, that is why the main part of the officer corps went for the South in the beginning.
It was not because they supported the move for independence, it was because to them it was the lesser of two evils.

The two world wars and the numerous wars that preceded them after the emergence of a united Germany, were the main reasons why USA could grow to such super power status so fast, the US had immense economic benefits from these wars that is hard to imagine, the greatest and riches powers on earth bankrupted them self doing WW1 and some cynical people has claimed that the involvement of the states in this conflict in 1917 had more to do whit insuring that the IOU's they had whit all parties would be honored after the end of hostilities.
Also both after/doing WW1 and WW2 the US took control off numerous patents that were given away more or less for free to US companies that had before been had been owned by German firms. especially chemicals & metallurgy was this a immense boon for the US, also artificial rubber were an German invention, likewise most of the early plastics.

All in all the growth of US to superpower were more a transferrence of patents and wealth from the old world to the new, than it was solely the US themself that coursed this.

Whoa there Alexander... You are doing American pioneers a great disservice.

There were hundreds or thousands of families that came out West. While there may have been a small percentage of 'whores' in the West, almost all of the women who came West were moral and chaste women. Do not be mislead by movies and television, or rumor.

My great-great grandmother wanted to settle out West because of religious persecution, but she was unmarried. Because she was unmarried she was required to find chaperones to ensure that she arrived safely and that her virtue would be protected. She found a family to sponsor her trip out West, and walked 3000 miles to get here. Women in the American West were very moral and profoundly religious.

As to the asssertion that the 'colonists' out West had had a constant lack of marriageable females until the turn of the century until the outbreak of WW1 in Europe, your source of information is in serious error. I'm sure that my family members be amused this statement, certainly all our families had no trouble finding local honorable young women to marry.. After the transcontinental railroad was build, it became a much simpler journey to come out West with few of the hardships the early pioneers had to face. Indeed one of my ancestresses traveled in that very way to meet her husband out West.

The American West was a place of great opportunity, women followed their husbands to find it. Mail order brides certainly existed but to assert that most of the women in the West were 'whores' is nothing short of insulting to the great hearted women that helped build the American West.

Ehhhh. i didn't said that the majority of females in the west were whores, i said that due to the relative lack of marriageable females their past were not that important when they got marriage contrary to the east coast or the old world.
Also my claim of lack of marriageable females is not caught out of the air or taken from movies and pulp fiction.
It is taken from actual descriptions of life on the frontier from everyone from Jack London, Mark Twain, and various sundry writers and historians, they could all tell you that the gender inequality were extreme in many places and some times one Exodus for gold left many midsized cities in the midwest woefully lacking of young healthy males to young ladies, so there was a real need for something like mailorder brides since both sexes especially after the civil war could have great trouble finding a spouse.
An example was Tombstone which in it's hayday in the 1880' duing the last of the silver rush which made the city, had more than 10000 people living in or around it, but less than 400 of does were women of a marriable age and not working in the brothel industry which was quite large at this time.

I think... there are many factors

but one big one... is simply land and resources. America had cleared a whole continent for colonization. Lots and lots of raw materials, lots and lots of land to expand on. It was one of the last bastions of wilderness to be explored.
British Empire inflated from the resources of its colonies, colonization was spurred by the need for resources and new markets. Japan started WWII to get the land and resources it needed to grow bigger.

If America did not have all of this territory and resources, we could not be the powerful, free country we are today.
I guess it's like... nutrition for a healthy body. Workout plans and yeah that stuff matters too, but nutrition is the basis of it all.

Yeah. LOL! Work out plans.

So for those saying that devastation is a key issue, we can talk about the USSR.
How did USSR become a superpower despite the forty million dead in the Great Patriotic War, absolute devastation of much of the countryside and many major cities and collective Soviets (communes)? I would prefer some good answers about the USSR as well.

I thought that the 1812 ended in a stalemate. Or at least thats what we are taught in America. People often praise Future President Andrew Jackson for leading the US forces into victory.

Were and when, the war in the north were a draw at best, which isn't impressive taking into account that the US forces had almost all the advantaged on their side. this incl superior numbers, logistic and armament, not least since Canada were NOT selfsufficient at that time and the british had to cross the ocean whit most of the munitions used.
Also the Capital of USA were burned and plunderd whic can't be taken as a success, likewise the naval war were even throu the US *Super* frigates did take some victories home. In general the US ports were under blockage which must be taken as a failure too, in fact the ONLY reason that US didn't get it's head handed back to them were because for the british it was a minor sideshow that they couldn't use to much resourses on compared to the Napoleonic wars.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Please note that the first state in the USA to allow Women to vote was a Western state (Wyoming). I doubt that men would have allowed women for whom they had no respect to vote (no man respects a prostitute).



I would appreciate specific scholarly references, because not all writers have the same credentials. Jack London and Mark Twain were not cool-headed observers of the American West but writers of popular fiction and tellers of tall tales. Personally, I prefer to read actual journals of persons who settled the West.



That's still not what the reality was for almost all the settlers in the American West. As I mentioned before, most young women came West with their husbands or parents. I will be happy to provide you with journal entries and other references if you would like them.



Tombstone is a dusty little town that was founded in 1877 by a prospector. By 1881 during it's heyday, it had a population somewhere between 5-10,000 people (most estimates say 6.000-7,000) of prospectors and miners. It was a wild mining town and the violent nature of the men who lived there in no way represents the common Western environment. It's about the same as saying that Serra Pelada is an example of Brazilian society and drawing conclusions based on that one location. Do you see how illogical that is?

Most of the West was not SETTLED by prospectors and mountain men even if the first forts and towns were started by them. Once the gold or silver panned out, the prospectors moved on. The towns and cities that grew in the West were created by people who were looking to build a better future for their families.

It is difficult to answer these questions because they are so broad as to almost require a book to reply.

First, I think you should consider the innovative spirit of the colonists in America. For instance, Benjamin Franklin became one of the wealthiest people in the world by shear use of his intellect. The royalties on his inventions (recognized by the European nations of the time) generated a huge amount of income (and this does not include the possible royalties for the lightning rod, which he gave FREE to the world, because he thought it would benefit mankind).

Second, the often cited notion of "Manifest Destiny" contributed to a sense of invincibility and entitlement to Americans. See this in the push for the expansion to the western limits (Pacific Ocean) of the country, and the wholesale slaughter of Natives, as well as Spanish and French inhabitants in order to sieze land for the English version of Americans.

Third, America allowed its citizens to flourish regardless of class. In this way, anyone could rise from pauper to statesman by virtue of talent and intellect, as long as he was part of the club (= right thinking and action). In the old days, this was a White Anglo-Saxon Protestent. These days, it would appear that anyone is allowed to rise up to highest level of society regardless of ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation, but a deeper scrutiny will yield a propensity for indiviuals to adhere to the rules of the club.

Finally, while Americans believe in the sanctity of individualism, they are not afraid to die defending their country and their way of life. This is evident with the defeat of Nazi Germany and Japan, and the current war against the Muslim extremists, who wish to wipe them out completely.

As far as America being a current superpower, it is far from certain. America's foray into king-making is disastrous at best, and foolhearty at worst.


李思松

Here's another take:

They became a world power because of their size, isolation and the will of their leaders to become and – more importantly – stay one.

After their 1812 fiasco they started to build up their empire, only starting wars or joining any when they thought it would be a sure win, for their own profit, nothing else. At the same time they did everything possible to stop others trying or doing anything similar. They read their classiscs well: their biggest weapons are good PR, bribes, good use of 'divide and conquer', sabotage, and excellent political salesmanship, being able to sell a lemon for a Rolls Royce (an art they perfected against their own people, like Native Americans).

They did it like running an American business, with the same ruthless ethics. The American people had nothing to do with it, they’re just a tool to get the job done, like the employees of any mnc.

Now that the isolation is over, their supremacy comes falling apart. Their leaders may choose to adapt and join, or to sabotage and hope for a status quo, or to isolate themselves again. At the moment it seems they are preparing for either of the last two.

Was it good? Was it bad? That’s in the eye of the beholder.

BJ

I think its size, its the largest western nation with 300m population, just look at europe's strongest nation, germany because it is the largest western earopean nation. and if france or britain had a population the size of the USA and its land area it would be the songest nation too.

It is obvious that there's a variety of factors. But, it's still difficult to pinpoint the main factors. Population is of course very important, but then again India and China always had large populations. Countries like Mexico and Brazil had large populations. Argentina was once one of the most developed countries, and yet it sunk out of radar by the end of the 20th century. There are some people who believe that it is the British (well English) system and culture that plays a prominent role because the argument goes that in most cases former British colonies do better than former colonies of other European countries. That could simply be a matter of linguistics, of course.

I also notice that in most instances people who post on the internet who either live in the US or grew up in the US seem to have the most negative perspective of the US. I sometimes often wonder why that is so. You'd think foreigners who do not benefit from the US would have the more negative perspective of the US, but that isn't usually the case. I personally think it is the fact that the US does not hide from its history could be the major factor in this. It teaches both the good and the bad parts of its history, from its own viewpoint of course. Therefore people who are taught US history as they are growing up would tend to have a more negative view of its past.

Or it could simply be a part of the American culture. Americans are intellectually rebellious against the authority in most cases. Openly questioning the official authorities also seems to be ingrained in American culture. I think therein also lies part of the anwer. Americans continually improve because they are critical towards themselves. Whereas in other parts of the world we like to hide the truth if it is something that could be embarassing or shows a less than virtuous side of ourselves.

21th century ?
20th American
19th British
18th French
17th Spanish
16th ?
15th ?
14th Mongols


How america became great?

- right place at the right time
- positive thinking
- i dun wanna be like you ( independence )
- greed is good
- protestantism

The Wealth of Nations

The Wealth of Nations was written for the average educated individual of the 18th century rather than for specialists and mathematicians.

There are three main concepts that Adam Smith expands upon in this work that form the foundation of free market economics:

The Division of Labor
The Pursuit of Self Interest
The Freedom of Trade

In addition to the innate advantages that the U.S. enjoyed in the late 19th to early 20th century: isolation from powerful neighbors by oceans, relatively little devastation from the World Wars compared to the European and East Asian nations, it also doesn't hurt for the American Leaders to use quite a bit of Machiaveillian guile. You can say its natural for a national leader to look out for His home nation's best interests.

I believe the U.S. became militarily Pre-Eminent around the world by the conclusion of WW II. Ever heard of Operation Paperclip? Scientists and Technologies that made the Nazi war machine possible were taken from the defeated Axis nations and shipped to the U.S. before the Soviets could get their hands on them. We are all well aware of American foreign policies during the last half of the 20th Century once she became both Economically and Militarily dominant. Whether you believe American foreign policy during this period is justified or not depends on your political alighment.

In response to Beejay, yes, I do have a somewhat negative image of the U.S. government. I attribute this viewpoint to the American culture. Yes, there does appear to be greater social and political freedoms here than other nations. It does have a divisive effect on the nation of the U.S. , but I think it also gives this nation a sort of Conscience of its actions in domestic as well as foreign affairs. Could it be that myself being an Asian American feels left out of the major decision making process of this nation? Perhaps...

The concept of The Invisible Hand

The "Invisible Hand" is a frequently referenced theme from the book, although it is specifically mentioned only once.

As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. (Book 4, Chapter 2)
It is also mentioned implicitly, as in:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. (Book 1, Chapter 2)
This concept seems paradoxical and was the source of much controversy — indeed, the controversy continues to this day. Among its harshest critics are segments of the religious community, and the political Left. There are two important features of Smith's concept of the "invisible hand" that are often overlooked, however. Firstly, Smith was not advocating a social policy (that people should act in their own self interest), but rather was describing an observed economic reality (that people do act in their own interest). Secondly, Smith was not claiming that all self-interest has beneficial effects on the community. He did not argue that self-interest is always good; he merely argued against the view that self-interest is necessarily bad. Indeed, he often harshly criticises those who act purely out of self-interest and greed, and warns that, "[a]ll for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." (Book 3, Chapter 4)

It is worth noting that, upon his death, Smith left much of his personal wealth to charity.

On another level, though, the "invisible hand" refers to the ability of the market to correct for seemingly disastrous situations with no intervention on the part of government or other organisations (although Smith did not, himself, use the term with this meaning in mind). For example, Smith says, if a product shortage were to occur, that product's price in the market would rise, creating incentive for its production and a reduction in its consumption, eventually curing the shortage. The increased competition among manufacturers and increased supply would also lower the price of the product to its production cost plus a small profit, the "natural price." Smith believed that while human motives are often selfish and greedy, the competition in the free market would tend to benefit society as a whole anyway. This was later adopted as a universal principle by the laissez-faire economists of the 19th century.

Meritocracy
Meritocracy is a strong theme in the work. Specifically, Smith stresses the critical importance of allowing individuals to achieve what their "God-given talents" will allow them to, without interference from outside forces seeking to shape larger societal outcomes. Smith posits that these outside forces lead to inefficiency in the division of labour and hamstring progress generally.


Progressive Taxation
Smith did not believe that the luxury of the rich was a great benefit to society, when set against the hardships of the poor, and he is often cited as the source of the modern idea of progressive taxation, which he advocated on grounds of fairness. In his discussion of taxes in Book Five, he wrote:

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." [1]

Both-Benefit" Transactions
Of all the innovative theories and observations in The Wealth of Nations, perhaps none was as trenchant (and as revolutionary for the economic thinking of the time) as Smith's recasting of the results of a mercantile transaction. Up until The Wealth of Nations it was generally accepted that in any economic transaction one side always "won". In other words, either the buyer or seller got to "put one over" on his "opponent."

Smith rejected this notion, and famously stated that "a voluntary, informed transaction always benefits both parties." That is, provided that there is no coercion or fraud, when the buyer gives something of value to the seller in exchange for something else of value, both parties "win". This is because the buyer values what the seller is selling more than what he is giving to the seller in exchange for it. And, for his part, the seller is all too happy to part with what he is selling for the buyer's property, because he values that more. The transaction would not occur if this were not the case, because neither party would want to exchange something he values highly for something he does not value very much. In short, each party gets something he wants more in exchange for something he wants less — they both benefit.


The Diamond-Water Paradox
Main article: Paradox of value
Smith addresses in The Wealth of Nations a problem that was torturing the best economic minds of his day. This problem was rooted in the means by which objects are valued. The two predominant theories of value in Smith's time were the so-called "Practical Theory of Value" and the labour theory of value, as delineated later by David Ricardo.

The practical theory of value (also called the objective or intrinsic theory of value) held that an object's value was rooted in how useful it is to mankind. This had been the general consensus theory of value for many years, up to Smith's era. However, if this theory were true, why was it that diamonds (which had, at the time, little practical use) command a much higher price than water (which is utterly crucial to man's existence)? This problem was known as "the diamond-water paradox", as it seemed to make no sense.

Smith does not solve the riddle in The Wealth of Nations, but he points it out as an important question remaining to be answered in the field of economics. He does attempt to give a solution by adopting the labour theory: he concludes that diamonds are worth more than water because of their rarity, and because great effort is required to mine and cut them. However, Smith admits that even this solution is unsatisfactory because it does not sufficiently describe why diamonds are worth more than, say, emeralds (which require even more labour to mine, and are considerably rarer), or why a large, easily mined diamond is worth more than a small, difficult-to-spot one.

Declaration of Independence - adopted on July 4, 1776

This book is published on March 9, 1776 ... seems to be me this book has shaped the US for the past 200 years by the immigrants who cherish the free spirit of new ideas ...

Adam smith made america superpower?

Instead of copying from a book, why not give personalized opinion, that is what people like to hear. There really is no right or wrong answer to this open ended question.


-- scottish-irish descent played major role in laying foundation for building america early on. don't you think these people were discriminated by the english ( anglo-saxons ) back home, so they wanted to build somthing new in a new world. break from catholicism too. by the way scotts have nomadic heritage, their ancestor fought roman soldiers as picts in british isle.

american industry mights are rockefeller(oil) and carnegie(steel) driven by auto industry. gates(pc software) is considered the same. wealth is created by invention or technology that changes the way people live their lives profoundly.

I read and trace clues ... and i integrate clues into a picture (model), if the clues make sense.




I like this clue (or probably facts?)
By the way, does masonic movement come with strong scottish or irish background?



Well, i see the spirit of Adam Smith in these people ...




It sounds like you are asking if Karl Marx made China a communist country?

I'd rather argue that the USA has been drawn rather involuntarily into events and has become world power almost against its will - perhaps the only time in history a world power has.

Perhaps ... but then they did a lot of involuntary invasions and conquests, involuntary declarations of war, involuntary meddling in local and regional politics abroad to maintian a status quo that's advantaguous to the US and a lot of involuntaty meddling in local and regional politics abroad to disrupt a status quo that's advantaguous to other powers (in both cases often supporting or pushing society models that are the opposite of what the US says they stand for). And then we're not even beginning to talk about all the involuntary 'integrity preservation actions' they committed in their own country.

Enough involuntaries to make it entirely voluntary. The aim always was to build an empire, to keep it and to make sure nobody else could come close.

BJ

Reading between the lines.. what you said is entirely false. America didn't become superpower by being a con-aritist. There were some shady things happened. Nothing is clean as a whistle, and to save time and resources some short cuts were made, that is about it. For America to avoid isolation, it must spread its ideals to others and help them protect it. As I said on other thread about the rise of China with current political system legitimise the similar regime such as Myanmar, and it could actually illegitimise America in a process. America is not an empire, whose the colonies ?

Nothing between the lines. When you work hard, your hands will get dirty. Same with empire builders. They did what needed to be done (they could have done it differently of course). No empire was ever built without bloodshed, betrayal, thievery, power mongering, lies and suppression. We may or may not like it, but it's a fact of life nevertheless.

Btw, since when do empires need colonies? Besides, others might call those 'spheres of incluence', 'tributary states', 'befriended nations' (you know, those really tiny ones completely dependent on their big friend), etc.

Just like all other things: as times change, the names change, but never the concepts behind those names.

BJ

Not in case of the US. I am rather going with the opinion of the former Singapore ambassador to the UN Kishore Mahbubani, himself no big friend of the West, that the USA are the most benign superpower in the history of humankind.

Why, danke, Herr Libre.

Better to be benign than some crazy country that just invades some random country in the Middle East on a whim because of the slight possibility that they have Weapons of Mass Destruction, which we already knew North Korea had but chose not to invade or to be hostile (thanks Clinton). Right, I mean, what kind of sick, twisted, delerious leader would take America on that little joyride of hellfire and doomed national existence?

Oh yeah, right, we already do have a leader like that. Lol.

We need your German Chancellor! Send her here! And we shall send tribute of tasty American Doritos in return! If you do not comply with this exchange of tribute in 30 days, then like the Germans did when they sent Lenin back into Russia, we will send Arnold Schwarzenegger back into Austria, where he will travel across the German border to pump you up and annoy the crap out of you.

See, look below! We already know how to make her feel comfy and right at home!



On a serious note, America's success lies within the victory of WWI. Before the First World War, America was in debt to many different nations, and after the war, everyone was in debt to us! The economic powerhouse shifted from London to Washington D.C. in this case. And of course, the Second World War pulled us out of the Great Depression, and the Cold War gave us the motivation to compete with the Soviets technologically in the new Space Age. I know it's a rather oversimplification, but those are some of the basic themes.

Eric (En Rui)

It's not that simple. Bush doesn't make decisions by himself. Iraq was a unique situation. Saddam became a renegade. He was told not to invade Kwait and he did. And 10 yrs after desert storm it got more and more problematic. UN had no fly zone and other embargo, at no use. US is paying heavy price for invading Iraq. World would not have been better with Saddam still in power. Libiya basically gave up nukes becasue of Iraq invasion. N.K is different area of the world where oil isn't found.
Looks like it's not the US but your editorial is written "whim"-sically.

Man, did you back the wrong horse.

Come on: empires are not built accidentally, countries not invaded by accident, etc etc.
I have nothing against empires as such, but I do prefer an objective approach: if their aim wasn't to build an empire, then why all that conquering, mongering and meddling?

Benign meaning genlte, I'd say there are many empires that have a stronger claim to that fame. Even Rome was more gentle ... a lot less casulaties %-wise.

Hussein was told not to invade ... so we invade him? And since when has any president listened to what the UN or another country told them to do? (Least of all the US) Now if Hussein was allowed to take hold of Kuwait (and why not? Let's see ... Grenada, Panama, hmm), the ME would be at peace now, with the Saudis, Iraqis and Iranians busy with their own cold war, but all three too big to start a hot one, and competing heavily on the oil market, so oil would be no more than $30 per barrel. Less people would have died, less people persecuted and we would have a nice status quo and cheap oil. The average American (and European, Chinese etc) citizen would be better off. Hurrah!
Eventually Hussein would have died, his sadistic son killed in 'a car crash' and his other son would be president, in a system akin to (but way more progressive than) the one the Saudis have, who btw are the US' biggest friends while at the same time probably one of the least democratic and most oppressive countries in the world, ruled by Islam law. Etc etc.
So not invading Kuwait would have been better for the world in general. But of course, what's good for the world in general never is nor was a goal for the US (nor for any other empire in similar circumstances, I'm not bashing the US here). And from the above you can also see that rulers seldom have the best interest of their subjects in mind.

It's like big corporations. You fight your competition with any means possible, you grow through mergers and acquisitions, until you are so large, you can "bloody well do whatever you bloody well like". Employees and ethics only play a role when they seriously affect the value of the shares.

So yes, the US is and wants to stay an empire, on purpose.

BJ

em·pire (?m'p?r') Pronunciation Key
n.

1.
1. A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.
2. The territory included in such a unit.
2. An extensive enterprise under a unified authority: a publishing empire.
3. Imperial or imperialistic sovereignty, domination, or control.


---

The US is not an empire of states, no foreign states are ruled by US.

There are however globalized corporations that has empirical reach around the world. But, usually corporations do not have a national allegience, theoretically, and owned by the shareholders whoever that maybe.

Well, I guess the corporate definition (#3) can only be applied to the US if you strecth it a bit (sort of like we always do with Sunzi's books), but the other 3 apply: it's called the united STATES of America for one. And it controls plenty of non-US territories, although not as many any more as at the end of WW2 ('control' doesn't have to mean by military force of course, that was the way to control tributaries in the ancient days).

It's just my opinion. You do not have to agree with me: if you want to see the US as a fairyland of accidental world rulers where everybody has the same chance to succeed, all working happily together for the greater global good ... thats OK with me.

BJ

> It's just my opinion. You do not have to agree with me:
> if you want to see the US as a fairyland of accidental world rulers where everybody has the same chance to succeed,
> all working happily together for the greater global good ... thats OK with me.

> BJ


a lot of dribble/babble but completely incoherent. no one will be convinced of your view point.

---

middle east:

first we must understand their culture and their temperment. islamist will not be engaged in a prolonged cold war scenario but they will anhilate each other. ( eg. suicide bombings.. alah akbar ). in hindsight, everyone has 20/20 vision and can get it right. today's oil price is due to demand of oil, mostly by chinese demand, and less to do with war in Iraq. If saddam was let go.. he would have tried to take over the middle east. and libya will still have nukes.

usa:

there still are remnents of ww2 territories, a lot of US territories are are happy with the present arraingements. some had tried to become part of US federation but denied. US does not rule others by try to extract resources by force. US however are interested in spreading ideal of liberal-democracy and captialist-economic systems, because US needs friends abroad and to avoid isolation. did US planned to become a world leader. I think there were plans to survive and be greatest it can be. we have western europe today becasue of US protected it from USSR. also S.korea, Japan, Taiwan from red china.

And least of all you I suppose. But my aim is not to convince, anyway.

How firm is your grasp of history ... Iran and Iraq fought a long bloody war just recenlty. No-one wants to repeat that, least of all Hussein who was involved in the first one. Besides, Persians and Assyrians know about diplomacy and politics for 3000 years now, halve of that under their new religion, so maybe your bloody scenarios aren't all that realistic.

Oil price is high because the sellers keep raising the price and buyers keep buying it. That's called good salesmanship: trying to find the price ceiling of your product. Btw, they do what is illegal in most western economies: forming a kartel. One barrel costs the Saudis less than 50 dollarcents (talk to an oil guy if you don't believe that). On the other hand, at 150 dollars per barrel it still would be cheaper than any other energy source: expect oil to double in price over the next 5-10 years. So yes, the price could be a lot lower and would be if there was more competition (instability) and pressure in that region. All of that would greatly benefit the US-citizen.

Force can be more than the violence of gun powder, did you know? They spread the ideal while doing their best to stop otthers achieving it. Now that it has become unstoppable, they do all the things opposite to what they asked of the others to do before. Think magic words like ‘free market’. In other words, first they strengthened the foundation of their empire, now they defend it: there is no altruism among US leaders. And again, I am not bashing the US, just being realistic ... any empire leadership would try the same. But you see something else, that’s OK.

BJ

How can anyone be an empire like that? Once you rule something, technically it's not foreign anymore, it's yours. Would the Roman Empire fit? The Chinese empires? The Byzantine Empire?

- difficult to read. i will ignore most.
- give example how usa is an empire?
- to know mid east, must know arab history. how they lost to west.
- crystal ball says oil 150$ / barrel by when? 5 to 10yrs thats wide window. my dog can say the same.

emperors are usually king of kings. once empire collapses, constituent nations go their separate way. they have political unity but everythingelse may be different.

im·pe·ri·al·ism /ɪmˈpɪəriəˌlɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[im-peer-ee-uh-liz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.
2. advocacy of imperial interests.
3. an imperial system of government.
4. imperial government.
5. British. the policy of so uniting the separate parts of an empire with separate governments as to secure for certain purposes a single state.

----

Still an empire has to be perceived and recognized to have imperial reach.

The US is not an empire, and it does not have imperial reach.

The US has cultural hegemony, which the economically dominant nation has culturally influencing power often called "soft power".

For the past Fifteen years, China has been the greatest importer of the US culture and almost exported none of its culture. China is essentially a giant sponge, absolving everything the world has had created for the past 300 years( science, tech, etc ).

Being influenced by the soft power of economically powerful nation, who deems to be a role model, is not of anything imposed such as imperialism, but it is when receipient elects to accept for its own goodness for merit it brings.

of course. america went into iraq for one reason to dethrone saddam. wmd was execuse. anyone who thinks otherwise is naive.

Thanks. Imperialism meaning heosuabi's 1st definition (extending an empire's rule etc), yes. But still also being an empire. We live in different times than the Romans or Napoleon, so we give concepts different names, but the concepts remain the same.

Oh and heosuabi, you say my post is difficult to read and that you have a dog that can predict the price of oil going to $150 ... I guess it would be a better then to ask your dog to reply from now on? (you must be rich with a dog like that). Btw, if you had told people 5 years ago that oil would now be $75, they would have laughed at you, so a raise to $150 in 5 years isn't as normal as you try to make it look like).
Anyway, the thread is about the why of US supremacy in the last century, so debating about whether or not the US is an empire is beyond that. I think it is (and I do not mean that soft power you talk about), you think it isn't, let's leave it at that.

BJ

Lets not make this personal, please.

The US may be seen as the scum of the earth, but the "foreign territory" it holds, such as Puerto Rico are given multiple referendums where the people could have won independence simply through voting. How many other more "enlightened" countries in the world allow such a thing to occur? Does China give Tibet or even Taiwan a chance at voting for independence through multiple referendums? We blame the US for what its government has done in the last few years, and yet we always excuse what China does because it is the "actions of the PRC". Is there not a double standard in the way we approach things? So please, before we get into anymore US bashing lets just stick to the subject of how the US became a superpower.

I am much more inclined to think that it was British culture coupled with the isolation and huge resources available that allowed the US to become so powerful. During the World Wars the US's industry could push out more military hardware than its enemies could destroy. In a total war environment no country would have had the resources to match the US's industrial output. It is also strategically located. It has access to both the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans. If Singapore was located in Central Asia rather than being located in such a strategic area I do not think it would have done as well as it has. So location is a key factor as well, in my opinion.