Decline blogging

In a somewhat poorly-written column in the Financial Times, Byron Wien argues that the U.S. is in an irreversible decline:

In 1945, the US was clearly the world’s leader militarily, economically and politically. Its universities were pre-eminent and its cultural life was enriched by the migration of Europeans during the previous decade. This position of leadership lasted 35 years until 1980...By 1980 however, Europe, helped by the Marshall Plan, was back on its feet and the Japanese car and electronics industries were developing momentum. We took our leadership for granted, ignored this shift and became complacent.

So, the rise of Japan and Europe was bad for America? Sure, if you measure America's success by our percentage of world GDP. But remember, the 80s and 90s were great times for the U.S. Japanese and European success didn't stop us from inventing the computer, the cell phone, the internet and the GPS in those decades, and our economy boomed accordingly.

The zero-sum-game-ism continues:

Today, America is the leader in only five product areas: computer hardware, software, biotechnology, aerospace and entertainment. That is not enough to provide job opportunities for a country of 300m people.

So only sectors in which the United States leads the world can provide us with jobs? Does that mean that if we led in every sector, other countries would suffer massive unemployment? Somehow I doubt it.

Anyway, Wien goes on to make some good points about strengthening American education, high-skilled immigration, etc. But we should remember that "competitiveness" isn't actually about competition in the classic sense; other countries' development does not equal America's woe (and vice versa). The worst thing we could do in response to global competition is to try to bring other countries down in an effort to build ourselves up.