The Collapse of US Hegemony is Imminent

Great response! We agree that a hegemony is characterized by one nation (state) exercising significant political and economic influence over other nations. However, we disagree on the characterization of the EU as a nation state and the role it plays on the system level of global politics. I actually agree with your criteria used to define a nation state, I just think you incorrectly implemented it in the case of the EU. Lets take another look at your criteria: 1.)The development of a military/self defense force - This is your big slip-up. There is no "EU Army" in existence. The autonomy of the EU and its ability to build an effective military is non-existent because they are powers that are exclusively found in a constitution (which does not exist for the EU!). Most of the EU relies on the military strength of NATO, which, as you know, is primarily American military. This applies to this debate directly because a defining characteristic of a hegemon is its military and you have yet to provide a country who comes remotely close to competing with the American military. 2.)The development of a stable economic system - I think EU does in fact fulfill this criteria, but I'd like to remind you that there is no "EU GNP" rather the sum of the GNPs of the states included in the EU. Even, when the sum of the EU is compared to the US, the US still has 40% more purchasing power!!! which should outright refute your assertion that the EU combined is somehow more powerful then the US. The main reason the US is richer is, first of all, because a higher proportion of Americans are in employment and, secondly, they work about 20% more hours per year than Europeans(http://www.taurillon.org...). 3.)Sovereignty within its domains - You admit that the EU does not fulfill this criteria because without a constitution the EU is unable to claim any sovereignty over the domestic or international policy of any of its contributing members. Ultimately, this kind of autonomy is granted exclusively to the nation state's government. Even when speculating towards the future of global politics, there is unlikely to be the merger of all 27 countries to form one sovereign nation state because of the economic redistribution ramifications and the loss of a national identity will undoubtedly fuel considerable opposition. Your assumption that the EU is a nation state is incorrect because it fails 2/3 of the criteria you supplied. Finally, the assumption that the formation of an EU constitution is imminent is premature and naive. I will concede that a European Union Constitution is inevitable but it is not within 10-20 years and it is certainly not granting the kind of sovereignty to the EU that you are expecting. The EU is certainly an early indication of the "global village" phenomenon but you wrongfully assume that a complete overhaul of the nation-state system that has existed for the past 1000 years is going to occur within a generation. "I would also like to point out that your definition of nation makes room for: "politically organized body of people under a single government." The EU undoubtedly is a politically organized body of people—or at least states—and with a constitution I would maintain that it would indeed be under a single government." - Round 2 Perhaps the EU has some semblance of political organization in treaty form, but it is certainly not organized under a single government with any measurable autonomy which is fundamental to a nation. I will permit your 20 year estimate for imminent but I think it is stretching it. Partly, because although human civilization has been around for roughly 2000 years the United States political presence is only 230 years old! Which means your allowing nearly 10% of it's lifetime to qualify as imminent. A bit of a stretch if you ask me. Enough with the EU. Lets talk about China. You rightfully point out that I forgot to address your argument regarding China's investment in America and vise-versa and them "floating the bill" for the Iraq war. This is something an economists would have an easier time explaining but when a country takes a loan from another country it comes in the form of bonds that other countries purchase from the United States. Ironically, it is the EU which, together with China and Japan, continues to lend the money to the US which keeps our households spending and our economy growing. Now, you are correct in your point that these countries could have a measurable impact on the American economy if they chose not to loan the United States money. BUT. You are mistaken if you think this would ever happen. It is because of the power of John Locke's Commercial Liberalism. China has made a significant investment in American success (or how are they going to get their money back!?!). The economic ramifications of China with-holding loans from the United States would be a huge detriment to China's own economic growth. So in reality, the Chinese and American economies are intricately linked which means that Chinese economic growth is limited to some degree by American success. A good economy to be linked to if you ask me. A link that is only strengthened by the fact that we are the most desired market in the world because of our constituents relatively high incomes. Your claim that the Chinese economy will surpass the American economy would be true if we lived in a world where economic development have no social implications. This is not the case. When a country gains an "economic foothold" , social and humanitarian pressures quickly ensue. A key contributor to China's manufacturing power is the fact that they have an enormous labor force that (thanks to a deplorable lack of worker's rights) works for very cheap. With economic development, labor unions will form and worker/human rights advocates will emerge. To avoid a civil backlash the government will enact laws enforcing minimum wages and worker welfare laws. This is a very observable phenomenon that has occurred in this country a long with all other world powers. The emergence of worker rights will slow this pace of economic development to a rate similar to that of the US. Finally, let me continue to assert that the Chinese military does not compare to the magnitude of the American military. You concede that the American budget is 15 times greater then that of the Chinese but you reconcile this with the fact that the Chinese have greater man-power: "The converse of course is that China has more people than any country. Also, we recently have seen a couple things. Firstly, that technology can not simply replace boots on the ground, which gives China's military a distinct advantage in that they have both a high level of technology as well as the people with which to work." - Round 2 Technology absolutely can replace "boots on the ground". I think this is a silly point to make because with the dawn of the nuclear age we find that one technologically advanced weapon has the potential to wipe out 100,000s of people. Its scary but true. The old ways of measuring military strength (i.e. troops/army size) are now a thing of the past. Technology and military development spending is what matters now. And on this level China cannot compete with the United States. I'm going to end by further explaining my comments about Globalization. Globalization serves as a means for the advancement of new foreign markets and new unexplored venues for revenue. The other role it has, is its ability to preserve the economic powers that control and fuel the system. This may seem like a Marxist observation, but it's true. Globalization rewards its greatest participants which would undoubtedly be the United States. Globalization is capitalism. Capitalism rewards those on the top disproportionately which is an important preserving factor to the American hegemony.