Fine, if you pomoistically want to see it that way, but where is the hard evidence? You provide none at all.
"Hegemony" doesn't directly have to do with economic prowess, unless you think you can (like Joe Biden) reduce power to economic prowess (when the Spanish conquistadores annexed swathes of South and Central America, this had nothing directly to do with their economic prowess). What Joe Biden said, was this: "We are still better positioned than any country in the world -- any country in the world -- to own the 21st century economically. Our GDP is bigger than that of China, Japan and Germany combined. We're in a situation where here in the United States of America the median income is close to $50,000. In China, it's $4,500. We wish them better. But just to put this in perspective, it's important to know where we stand now, the platform from which we now operate, and why if we do the right things we have an overwhelming prospect -- an overwhelming prospect -- of not only recovery here in the United States but leading the world in the 21st century." http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/02/28/remarks-president-and-vice-president-national-governors-association Rather comically, Joe Biden (who is vice president) then went on to say that: "Americans have never settled for number two -- literally. This is not hyperbole. It's not one of these chauvinistic things. We want other nations to do well. We'll do better if they do well. But we are not -- we not -- prepared, nor are you, to settle for being number two in anything." In the real world, America is number two already, since, bij Joe's own measure, the GDP of EU27 is larger than that of the United States. At purchasing power parity, China's gross product is already more that two-thirds of US GDP; if China's GDP continues to grow at three times the US rate or more, then within a decade Chinese gross product is larger than that of the US. Jurriaan PS - I don't normally discuss with pomo's, because they arrogate an astronomic level of abstraction without any research, and pretend to adjudicate about discourses/paradigms/researchprogrammes without having the foggiest idea of the real content of those discourses, or about the evidential basis on which they are founded. These discussions are a waste of time, because they aren't disciplined by any tangible evidence or cogent thought. It is just one narrative waffle stacked against another narrative waffle. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
