Scott

To better communicate the point you’re making, my suggestion would be to avoid the use of these kinds of phrases if you’re not implying a nationalist competition. If “too good for too long” is short hand for the US’s heavy handing use of foreign and military policy, directly or through organizations (e.g. NATO, IMF, World Bank, etc.) then say so. It’ll help bring clarity to your narrative, and help you own and internalize what you’re writing – making it both more impactful and personal.

If the US and the rest of the “West” have had “perks” they’ll lose, then name some of them. If the perks are the ability to bully through fiscal policy backed by military might, lay it out.

Additionally I’d substitute something other than “West”, like “economically advanced nations”, or OECD, since Korea, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, and other advanced economies like Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore, are all eastern hemisphere. But be clear that the more advanced economies are not homogeneous and are not simple a substitute for the US, G5, G8, EU or the OECD. Too, understand the East isn’t the only region rising. Russia, Brazil, Mexico, and other countries in Latin America, Africa and the Middle East, are part of this rise out of nationally induced structural poverty. The use of East and West are better shorthand if you’re implying a US/China competition – if so, use “US and China”.

If “have to share” implies the sharing of political, fiscal and military power, use those terms. If “have to share” means a sharing of resources and economic results because one group is intrinsically better at extracting and using, describe what you mean. (While keeping in mind that free trade abrogates the concept that there are winners and losers. If voluntary trade meant this, we’d all still be living like Neanderthals).

(As for statement of fact – quoting others, and suggesting attitudes is not a statement of fact. All of those quotes and excerpts are centred on opinion and prediction, including even the immensely intuitive Rosling.)

All the feedback aside, keep writing! I am enjoying the articles.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear in my narrative but I’ve re-read it and didn’t mean to create a competition, nor do I think it reads that way.
Everything in the piece is a statement of fact and opinions of others.
I agree that nationalism has been the root of most many world conflicts and that’s certainly not what I’m promoting here. It’s merely interesting to see how the west is gradually losing its global dominance, and I’m curious as to how nations in the western world will deal with having to give up some things, likely not have all the perks they’ve grown accustomed to. Most interesting is if people will view the east’s rise as something that is okay, realize they have to share and if nationalism can be kept out of the dialogue.

Technology has indeed played a major role in helping nations quickly develop and there’s nothing wrong with that. This is without a doubt the fastest period of growth the world has ever seen, regardless of how it’s happening and it will be interesting to see what the world looks like in 30 years and how all nations manage their egos, expectations and place in the world.

I’m all for every country elevating their living standards, while creating a more peaceful and prosperous world.

Thanks for your comment Todd.

Over the past 30 years, the same oh-my-god-look-how-fast-they’re-growing-they’ll-take-over-the-world blather was talked about the Middle East, Japan, Taiwan/Korea, SE Asia, recently China and India, and now parts of Africa.

It’s very cool to see both those countries change and reduce government oversight. That increase in freedom is directly responsible for lifting half a billion people out of abject poverty.

At the root of what you’re talking about – this competition for who’s the most powerful nation on the planet – is nationalism, at the root of most of the wars of the past century.