Forums

I don't believe it's wise to pursue this line of thought to its logical conclusion. 😊

"My" Carioca resides in Rio, if that is what you are asking.

great analysis and pleasure to read. It reminded me very astute  observation made  by lady who moved to USA from one of East European countries at end of 80-ties and landed roughly the same job she hold at home . She told me " they work  there ( in USA) 4 times as hard as we did at home  but their lives are perhaps only twice better at best. Where the difference goes ?" 

Digesting @macaroni21's comments, I can see how he comes to the conclusion re the USA maintaining its importance geographically perhaps through the end of this century. The same was to a certain extent true with Britain. It seems to me a fact that the end of previous 'empires' has almost always resulted from a rot starting from within. But whereas China, the Ottoman Turks and to a certain extent Russia, for example, had all collapsed largely because of their inability to adapt to a changing world, Britain had to give up its empire for a variety of reasons with the rot starting 70 - 80 years prior to World War II. And I think from @macaroni21's post it is clear that the rot has surely already started within the USA. How long it can maintain its international status no doubt depends to a large extent on the mass of its own peoples and what other empires might rise as the century progresses. I suspect we all agree that, even though it is presently tackling some pretty horrendous economic problems, China has the ability to become the world's only superpower. Whether under President Xi's successors it will wish to take that role, though, is in my view doubtful. Put as simply as possible, the British ruling elite had for centuries been the land owning aristocracy. Thus parliament was elected from the votes of only a few hundred thousand land owners, all of whom felt they had some divine right to rule and were themselves very rich as a result of their huge land ownership. With the industrial revolution and the wealth derived from colonialism on a grand scale (at one time 25% of the known world was effectively British), the new mercantile class allied to massively increased urbanisation wanted its voice heard in the country's governance. Through a series of laws and taxes introduced over the middle 50 years of the 19th century, the wealth of the aristocracy was seriously diminished. Parliament had reduced the property thresholds required for elections thereby increasing representation from other classes in society. Britain still  remained rich but relatively less so. There is a famous quote from the hugely wealthy British mining magnate, Sir Cecil Rhodes, who had moved to South Africa towards the end of the 19th century and after whom Zimbabwe and Zambia were initially named as Rhodesia: "To be born British at the end of the 19th century is to win the first prize in the lottery of life." The times, though, were already changing. By then only 18% of Britons had the right to vote. In the new century, the electoral franchise was extended to cover all males over 21 and soon all women. The First World War soon wiped out a large proportion of the aristocracy's first sons, those who historically inherited the family landed estates. Many of these were subdivided amongst other siblings, thus reducing their wealth. The income from estates fell and the death of so many during the war resulted in a major shortage of servants vital to running their massive country houses. It was a slow nail in the coffin for the aristocracy. Many stately houses were pulled down between the wars, their owners simply unable to earn enough from the land and to pay estate duties when passed from fathers to sons. To cap it all, Britain had to  borrow massive amounts to finance its participation in the two World Wars. By 1945 Its debt exceeded 200% of GDP. Throughout the 1950s and 60s Britain had a tiered system of taxation and many paid a top rate of 97.5% on a large portion of their income. Financing an empire was totally impossible, although the wartime Prime Minister Winston Churchill believed part of it could be saved.  What might have happened without the two World Wars, we can only take a wild guess. But it's a silly question because the pieces on the international chess board were moving in a way that made those wars inevitable.

+1