America Will Collapse by 2025 (2010)

https://www.salon.com/2010/12/06/america_collapse_2025/

by truro • 5 years ago

35 119 5 years ago

jfengel• 5 years ago

(2010)

starwind5• 5 years ago

I lol'd at this oil analysis. The author had no idea what technological developments would be widely deployed in just the next couple years after they wrote this

coldtea4• 5 years ago

I lol'd at this oil analysis.

You really shouldn't tho.

The author had no idea what technological developments would be widely deployed in just the next couple years after they wrote this

None of the technological developments created since then [2010] are able to mitigate an oil shock of the kind described in the article given their current deployment levels.

Actually, not even any developments that might be created in the next 5-10 years, in the level that they can be applied within the next 15 years would solve such an issue.

fallingknife3• 5 years ago

Given that the US is now a net oil exporter, an oil shock scenario is pretty much off the table. Moving to EVs is going to take so much oil demand off the table that it's pretty much a non issue going forward too.

300bps2• 5 years ago

The article's oil analysis is laughable in hindsight. Look at this chart:

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...

Almost immediately after the article was written, US oil production hockey-sticked up to the point we were a net exporter of oil starting in 2020. The Salon analysis is actually hilarious against what actually happened.

starwind5• 5 years ago

None of the technological developments created since then [2010] are able to mitigate an oil shock of the kind described in the article given their current deployment levels.

May I suggest the combination of hydraulic fracturing with centimeter-precise horizontal drilling allowing oil producers (many of whom are badly run, granted) to access massive crude and natural gas resources previously unreachable?

notacoward4• 5 years ago

...and yet, those developments seem to have had little effect on the geopolitical situation. Everyone who tries to predict the future in this level of detail will have some misses, and it's always a bit too easy to criticize others' predictions. The question is whether their broader conclusions hold up better than mere guesswork, and I'd say this author did pretty well.

starwind5• 5 years ago

and yet, those developments seem to have had little effect on the geopolitical situation

I beg to differ. Two years ago the Saudis and the Russians got in a bad spat where the Russians decided they wanted to bankrupt US natural gas producers and the Saudis decided to bankrupt the Russians

Clubber3• 5 years ago

Doom and gloom has been selling for decades. Don't buy it.

fullstackchris• 5 years ago

the end is nigh!

coldtea4• 5 years ago

I think you've gotten the wrong takeaway message from "The boy who cried wolf story".

At some point, there were indeed wolves, so dismissing the chance of them because of fradulent/failed prior warnings turned out to be a mistake.

Plus, in 2022 it's more accurate than ever. Though of course, Rome didn't decline in a day, either...

xboxnolifes• 5 years ago

The take away isn't to always listen, but to not always exaggerate/lie. The reader never got impacted by the wolves, the speaker did. So in the end, maybe the ones impacted will be the media, not the readers.

Clubber3• 5 years ago

This isn't a boy who cried wolf story, this is a business model that is toxic and makes money of peddling fear and have been for decades.

esens• 5 years ago

Empires all do end and when they do they often fracture because of a built up of social discontent, but they are predicted to be ending 1000x more often than they end. Eventually someone calls it correctly though, and generally you only know who in hindsight.

Joker_vD2• 5 years ago

It's like predicting someone's death: undoubtedly one day that person will die, it's just quite hard to predict it accurately. As devil in a certain book jested, "Yes, the man is mortal, but that's half the trouble; it's that he sometimes is abruptly mortal, that's the trick!"

kube-system• 5 years ago

720 broken clocks might have one with the correct time on it, but that doesn’t mean it was working properly.

Joker_vD2• 5 years ago

The collapse of the USSR in 1991 came as quite the shock to everyone, including both the Soviets themselves, nevermind the Americans. Yes, the West have been spelling "doom and gloom" for the USSR since November of 1917 and yet it never came to pass... until one day, it suddenly did. And BTW, spelling the imminent doom of the Russian Empire too has been quite in vogue in Europe during the XIX century, and still it came in as quite a surprise to everyone in 1917.

jeffreyrogers2• 5 years ago

The USSR had alternate models to move to. What alternate model does the US have? The only ones that are somewhat successful are Russian and Chinese style authoritarianism, neither of which are palatable to the US population.

djohnston2• 5 years ago

I believed it until China started scoring own goals kneecapping their tech industry and their best and brightest kept coming to the West... Someday though, my VEMAX investments will look like a good decision.

anonporridge2• 5 years ago

One of America's secret sauces is that everyone in the world is welcome to defect from their home regime and come here. Hell, there's even a chance we'll make your children our leaders (Obama and Harris for example). And you personally have a chance to start a business and become a billionaire or advance up the corporate ladder to CEO of existing giants.

The inverse is not true.

The best and brightest Americans (regardless of race) can never effectively defect to China. Maybe if you're ethnically Han Chinese your children will have a chance to be fully integrated and accepted, but definitely not if you're any other race.

The gravity of best and brightest migration is still one way into the American singularity.

TameAntelope2• 5 years ago

We’ve substantially curbed immigration into the US, so I wonder how that might affect this “secret sauce”.

jeffreyrogers2• 5 years ago

They kneecapped some of their consumer internet industry. They're still investing a lot in all other forms of technology.

notacoward4• 5 years ago

Exactly. China is very deliberately not allowing the ad-click business to divert talent from more strategic sectors. Whether you think it's a good idea or not, acceptable or not in the sense of market freedom, it's a rational move.

sAbakumoff4• 5 years ago

America will not collapse, but American democracy likely will collapse.

At the end of 2022, GOP will win the mid-term elections and have the majority in the house and the senate.

They already have state legislatures effectively under control, and the supreme court is full of conservative judges.

In 2024 Ron De Santos, or another authoritarian candidate, will win the GOP nomination and easily win the election because Mr. Biden is a total loser.

With the supermajority, the GOP will establish an autocracy for decades.

misiti37802• 5 years ago

If that happens, the democrats only have themselves to blame at this point. Biden came in with a 60+% approval rating, now he is in the high 20s / low 30s.

I actually think it's more likely that a third party like Andrew Yangs Forward Party emerges and wins an election. A lot of people are sick of two options, and feel alienated in by their own party (both sides)

sAbakumoff4• 5 years ago

100%. The only promise that Biden can keep is that "nothing will fundamentally change".

colinmhayes2• 5 years ago

Biden's approval rating is currently 43%. Third parties can't win in a first past the post system.

weatherlight• 5 years ago

I find this prospect terrifying.

COGlory• 5 years ago

"If the other party wins, it's not democracy."

rsstack• 5 years ago

That's not what he said. It doesn't matter which party wins. The issue would be if representatives of any party end democracy, which he outlined in short how it could be done - and some of the representatives of the "other party" have expressed real interest in performing those actions.

dbingham• 5 years ago

In this case, the Republican party is objectively authoritarian - and arguably neofascist. For all of the faults of the Democrats (and there are many) they are not actively hammering on the foundations of Democracy. Their leader did not just attempt to overthrow an election. They aren't actively undermining the ability to vote, or trying to put corrupt officials in place who will overthrow elections that don't go their way. The Republicans have done or are doing all of these things.

synergy20• 5 years ago

I'm still a little bit confident in the system, though.

Because in 2026, Dem will win back both congress and senate, it's just a normal pattern. Voters never liked any party owns it all.

Two parties keep playing this along the way, except each game are so close these days, it's tiring and boring and hard to advance any agenda when either one is in control.

The system is getting close to deadlock when both sides no longer honor the game rule: "debate before the election, work together after it and just wait for your next turn". Instead it's now about fighting every day, it does not matter who won the election anymore. The end result?

"Nothing Got Done(tm)"

In that sense, it's not because China is doing better, it's because US's internal problem stops itself, and may bring it down.

bryanlarsen• 5 years ago

The narrative is that the rules will change so that your 2026 scenario doesn't happen.

That's why the voting rights bill is Biden's main 2022 agenda item.

simon_o• 5 years ago

Because in 2026, Dem will win back both congress and senate, it's just a normal pattern.

The parent's prediction is that there won't be a (free) election in 2026.

Hope that helps.

treespace88• 5 years ago

I think it’s more likely the Democratic party collapses.

They can’t seem to find a single thing to unify on.

y-c-o-m-b• 5 years ago

"Conservative" literally means "averse to change" so of course they will always unify around a set of traditional beliefs.

The Democratic party has a harder time "unifying" because it's more accepting of change, but there is a wide spectrum of tolerance around how much and when people adapt to rapidly changing social and fiscal policies. Ultimately I think there is unification, but there's lag time for everyone to catch up and be on the same wavelength; a lag time of years, sometimes decades. This gives the perception of a disorganized party, but realistically it's more complicated than that.

fallingknife3• 5 years ago

Not sure why you think Ron desantis qualifies as an authoritarian. Also you admit the GOP will win the elections and Biden is a loser. Sounds pretty democratic. Predicting that the republican majority will inevitably establish an autocracy is birther level Dem propaganda. You shouldn't watch MSNBC.

sAbakumoff4• 5 years ago

I can see a few signs that Santis qualifies as authoritarian. Just from the recent news:

https://www.axios.com/desantis-florida-civilian-military-for...

Also, MSNBC & CNN are not different from Fox News. These are all propaganda networks. I despise them all equally.

xeromal• 5 years ago

People seem to forget that even if this happens, even the GOP will splinter and some point. When that happens, it'll be right back to split elections.

jessaustin3• 5 years ago

...American democracy likely will collapse.

American democracy collapsed in 1788, when the wealthy forced through a "constitution" that overruled democratic regulation of debt.

chasd005• 5 years ago

the GOP will establish an autocracy for decades.

do you just mean win elections for decades? That i can sort of believe (or at least comprehend), but wholesale destruction of Democracy? To me, that means canceling elections and the president declaring themself absolute power for life which i just don't see happening. I would expect a military coup before that since the military swears allegiance to the constitution first and then civilian leadership next.

sAbakumoff4• 5 years ago

What I mean is the following strategy:

- shredding off what remains of voting rights

- packing courts all over the country, including the SCOTUS with conservative or right-wing judges

- appointing right-wing figures to top positions in DoJ, DoD, and FBI

- cementing the state legislatures authorities to determine the outcome of elections

S_A_P• 5 years ago

Ahh the early days of clickbait. I wonder if the author was hoping to stop the demise or just wanted to be able to scream "see I told you so!" as the world burns.

chasd005• 5 years ago

i bet lunch that as soon as the author pressed the publish button they wrote another article under a different name title "Click to find out how that other guy is wrong and America won't collapse in 2025"

phekunde• 5 years ago

America will not collapse, it will become less relevant. The multipolar world is going to be more prominent going forward. Even France's Macron is talking about making EU independent of US influence. And with emerging country like India already having a DNA of non-alignment, it looks like the US will have a say in global world order but the influence will be far more limited than what it use to be.

systemvoltage3• 5 years ago

Good, US has been spending unfair share and has been the nanny of the world. One thing I agreed with Trump policy was this inward-looking aspect - no more stupid wars, no more pulling the weight of NATO and no more nation building in ME. Note that these policies were bipartisan - Bushes and Clintons/Obama supported them and spun the military industrial complex slot machine. What Trump did was very much in the stark contrast to the classic liberal/conservative stance of US foreign policy. Essentially a more lucid version of Ron Paul.

piva00• 5 years ago

Good, US has been spending unfair share and has been the nanny of the world.

Unfair share? Based on what? The spending is directly correlated to USA's interests, there is no nanny-ing or "good will" going on, it's a matter of purely international interests. Looking at this with the patronising "unfair share" is a bit preposterous.

I'd say it's pretty unfair to a lot of countries being forced under the sphere of influence of the US to be continuously subjugated, through foreign policy or direct meddling in internal affairs, like the whole of Latin America. That is really fucking unfair.

jessaustin3• 5 years ago

It's difficult to imagine Trump as "a more lucid version" of anyone? One would expect Rep. Paul could talk more intelligently than Pres. Trump on pretty much any topic, with the possible exception of USA corporate bankruptcy law.

With respect to the substance of your comment, sure, Trump talked a good game about stopping the stupid wars. He just never got around to actually doing that.

Jtsummers• 5 years ago

"unfair" is, in my view, the wrong way to frame it. It's a question of cost/benefit analysis. Does the US, by virtue of its effective global military presence, gain more through spending and maintaining it, in order to protect allies and its own interests, even if said allies fail to contribute a "fair" amount? (Whatever that may mean)

A loss of military hegemony will most likely reduce the US's global political and economic role as other countries move to fill that void or take advantage of the absence (China, Russia, at present). The net effect will likely be a shrinking of the US economy in the end, and not growth or even sustainment.

pyrale• 5 years ago

Good, US has been spending unfair share and has been the nanny of the world.

Do you really believe the US has been doing that selflessly?

I mean, it's OK to no longer want to be an imperialistic nation. The feeling I get from people with that kind of message, though, is that they usually don't want to lose the benefits of being hegemonic. They just don't want to pay the upkeep for it.

davideous• 5 years ago

The book "Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order: Why Nations Succeed and Fail" by Ray Dalio compares the rise (and decline) of the American "world empire" to prior world empires. The two most recent are the U.K. and the Netherlands.

The same things that are happening now have happened before -- just not in our lifetimes. The history and his analysis is quite instructive.

The book was refreshing in its objectivity, lack of political bias, and clarity of writing. I've given copies to several friends.

It's pretty clear from his analysis and the data that the U.S. is in a decline of global influence.

https://www.amazon.com/Changing-World-Order-Nations-Succeed/...

SuoDuanDao• 5 years ago

Ray Dalio is an international treasure. When I watch the Davos videos he often seems like the only one who's not in a quiet state of panic.

tablespoon3• 5 years ago

The book "Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order: Why Nations Succeed and Fail" by Ray Dalio compares the rise (and decline) of the American "world empire" to prior world empires.

Why should I put much stock in historical analysis done by a "American billionaire investor and hedge fund manager" [1]? My gut feel that someone like that probably has so much other stuff on his plate that the analysis would be in many ways superficial, and such a person likely has enough status that large numbers of people would indulge his pretensions at being a polymath even if it's not actually true.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Dalio

todorus• 5 years ago

Ad hominem

JavaBatman• 5 years ago

Even if we transition to a multipolar world order and renewed great power competition, America will still be the strongest and most secure global power. It has hegemony in the western hemisphere through its enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine; it is protected by the two largest oceans; it has historical, linguistic, and cultural ties to two regional powers on both sides of the ocean (UK and Ireland in Europe, Australia and NZ in the Asia Pacific, Five Eyes, etc.); it is by far the leader in soft power (music, movies, TV, technology, English language, etc.); and most importantly, it has the strongest military by far. Despite strategic defeats in the Middle East and South Asia, US officers gained tons of battlefield experience and the ability to test its weaponry. So even if the US now has to deal with a hegemonic challenger in East Asia (China) and more assertive one in Europe (Russia), its geography and demography give it advantages no other great power has.

SeungheonOh• 5 years ago

I see oddity of article in comparing America to Portugal, France, Soviet, and Britain as well. The unique and original system of Democracy and Repbulicanism that have continuously forced politicians to innovate further protects America from collapsing, unlike China and its virtual dictatorship.

BitwiseFool4• 5 years ago

I think the key unmentioned weakness of the United States is our economic system and monetary policy. Especially because of our ever increasing debt and deficit spending.

wbsss44127• 5 years ago

What do you pose is the implication of that?

orev• 5 years ago

Every (at least most) past conflicts that toppled the dominant players brought with it a new type of combat that those players were not ready for. Troop tactics, air power, etc. In the next one, it will be cyber.

We have opened a direct line for all of our enemies to be able to attack us without any regard to geography whatsoever. Critical infrastructure is all online and barely protected by even the most basic security. We’ve already seen multiple utilities go down due to hacks, and those were probably accidents where the attackers were overzealous. It’s not unreasonable to assume that we’re already completely pwned, with foreign interests just sitting back and waiting for the right time to flip a switch.

Military and geographical advantages are irrelevant in this scenario.

jrs235• 5 years ago

America will still be the strongest and most secure global power.
and most importantly, it has the strongest military by far.

"America" (The U.S.) will likely collapse from internal conflict, possibly precipitated or accompanied by external provocation (cyber warfare, infrastructure attacks, propaganda), that will divide the country and the military. Imagine the U.S. during the Civil War/War between the States. This time there won't be borders between the sides. How is a country facing such internal strife going to be able to control, let alone worry, about global affairs beyond it's borders?

wdr1• 5 years ago

A lot of people don't realize the United States has the second largest air force in the world.

Oh, it has the largest too -- the US Air Force.

It's just the second largest air force in the world belongs to the US Navy.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/largest-a...

kkjjkgjjgg• 5 years ago

No risk of socialism taking over?

parkingrift2• 5 years ago

After years of swelling deficits fed by incessant warfare in distant lands, in 2020, as long expected, the U.S. dollar finally loses its special status as the world's reserve currency. Suddenly, the cost of imports soars. Unable to pay for swelling deficits by selling now-devalued Treasury notes abroad, Washington is finally forced to slash its bloated military budget.

It's funny and interesting that the military budget is such a common punching bag. The defense budget is a pretty small percentage of the overall outlays. Yet people continue to act like it's the single line item that is holding America back.

Here's where the American federal government spent money in 2020.

* $1T on unemployment compensation and paycheck protection program

* $1.1T on social security

* $1.2T on medicare and medicaid

* $1T on "other" which includes federal employee retirements and welfare programs

* $900B on non-defense discretionary spending on thing such as housing assistance, transportation, and education.

...and then, finally, we get to defense spending at $700B.

The budget deficit for FY2020 was $3.1T. Maybe the military budget is so high it is causing a ripple in the multiverse that makes arithmetic different in this universe. Maybe if we cut $300B from the military budget in our universe it will even out to $3T because magic.

realce2• 5 years ago

Those figures are required expenditures, not budgets. They represent agreements between tax-paying citizens/employees and the government. The military's funding is variable and not required - the Constitution doesn't even support a centralized military. You're equating very different things.

parkingrift2• 5 years ago

No, I'm not. I specifically said spending and outlays. If you want to lawyer your way into a discretionary vs non-discretionary argument, have at it. I find it pointless in most scenarios, and especially in the context of this article.

In this hypothetical scenario where America can't borrow money or easily run a deficit, it won't matter at all whether a line item is discretionary or non-discretionary. Cutting the military budget won't magically help anything.

Turing_Machine2• 5 years ago

the Constitution doesn't even support a centralized military

Yes, it does. It just says that military appropriations for the Army have to be approved by Congress every two years. Congress controls the purse strings, the President has command.

Article I, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have power...To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy..."

Note that the Navy is not even subject to the two year limit on funding.

bjtitus• 5 years ago

In 2019 the defense budget would have been #3 on your list, under only Social Security and Medicare + Medicaid. Perhaps using a pandemic year with extra outlays to avoid economic collapse is not the best way to discuss overall government spending.

In typical years the Defense spending is equal to each of the discretionary non-defense spending and "other" mandatory spending which excludes Medicare + Medicaid and Social Security. Medicare + Medicaid and Social Security spending have certainly increased the most and that seems to be inline with the increased spending on health care over the last few decades.

It's also worth noting that the non-defense categories still include defense related spending like veterans' income security, benefits, and services.

TYPE_FASTER• 5 years ago

Income security spend was much higher in 2020 than prior years:

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55343 - 2018

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56325 - 2019

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57171 - 2020

chasd005• 5 years ago

...and then, finally, we get to defense spending at $700B.

just a small reminder that $700B is less than the bank bailout of 2008/2009 which straddled both a Republican and Democrat president. That's in the top 5 most outrageous things in my lifetime (so far).

DesiLurker4• 5 years ago

what you conveniently left out was that its only less by $100B (also one time vs recurring). Secondly it happened at the hand of a republican president and the democrat had to clean up the mess made by republican as always. one more thing the bank bailout was absolutely necessary if you did not want economy to collapse into a depression but none of the conservatives ever talk about all the banking deregulation (like graham beach leahy & glass stegal) that actually led to the conditions where financial system became so fragile that it had to be bailed out. Also, Govt actually made money on the TARP bailout after the funds were mostly returned.

erik_landerholm• 5 years ago

Using number of patents as a measure makes this whole premise dubious.

educaysean• 5 years ago

Why is the Hacker News title editorialized? I believe the convention is to use the original title of the linked article. Removing the "how" from the sentence changes the tone by quite a margin.

Shadonototra• 5 years ago

America won't collapse alone, the whole Western block will collapse with it, our civilization already died, the moment we decided stock market is more important than the education and health of our people

Greed, gluttony, spread of cancerous culture, lack of social justice and many more

kragen• 5 years ago

This is particularly timely after the Taliban routed the US in Afghanistan in May to August of last year.

An interesting thing here is the central role played by energy in this analysis; this article was before the fracking boom (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#/media/File:US_Crude_... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hubbert_Upper-Bound_Peak_..., which shows the US fracking boom, though not the recent decline) and before the last factor of 8 or so decrease in the cost of solar panels made them cheaper than fossil fuels in much of the world. So it predicts Iran and Russia will be "energy kingpins" in 02025, which doesn't really seem to be in the cards.

Maybe China will be an "energy kingpin"—it could cover the Gobi with PV panels and run HVDC, which might be outside the state capacity of countries like Perú, Saudi, and Libya which control vast desert territories on paper. But, so far, despite installing more PV capacity than the entire rest of the world, China's PV capacity factor is a disappointing 13%, compared to 29% in California, so it's apparently making terrible choices about where to site its solar farms. (Still better than the 10% you get in Germany or the Netherlands.)

For the last 2500 years the "world's reserve currency" has been gold, except for the last 77 or so. That could easily happen again. Bitcoin was kind of gunning for that position, but China's thoroughgoing rejection of it forecloses that possibility for at least a generation, and Bitcoin could easily cease to exist in that time.

Although the knowledge of this article's author about computer security seems to come from Hollywood, the computer security situation is indeed extremely grave, and as more and more things become digital, any state that doesn't take it seriously and take effective measures to improve the situation is likely to be destroyed. Presently, that means every state in the world.

It's true that when financial and military collapse comes, they are likely to come very quickly.

America Will Collapse by 2025 (2010)

Related Stories