4 The USA was the biggest economy, with something like 40% of total global GDP. That drove everything else.

Now it is down to 20ish % if I recall correctly and hence the motivation to diversify reserves is a lot bigger.

15% recently from the authors article, and falling from my calculations.

depends on if you adjust for PPP or not. Its 24% raw or 15% adjusted for PPP.

RAW: https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_gdp_as_a_percentage_of_wor...

PPP: https://www.statista.com/statistics/270267/united-states-sha...

I'd add that US political system is much more stable and trustworthy unlike countries without democracies and/or corruption perceptions. Presidential powers are far more limited, well scrutinized and things can easily be challenged in courts. If I held US dollars today I would be relatively more certain that it will retain value than other currencies. If all else fails one can count on US to exercise its military might to protect the dollar.

Although the US's reputation for stability has taken a severe hit over the last three years.

That seems to be changing though.

The US's war-might is limited. Look how poorly Afghanistan and Iraq went - the US's last two tests were seemingly ineffective. Syria was another trainwreck.

Internal polarization seems to be very high. Trump has eliminated or not replaced key diplomatic positions. The secretary of the navy was never confirmed and has just resigned. The defense secretary stepped down. A captain of a capital ship was ousted publicly to cheers of support from his crew.

NATO is a trainwreck. France and Germany have expressed desires to move away from US dependence while Trump demands more money.

The US's soft and hard power, to me, is just not fully there anymore.

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan were won almost as quickly as they began. It was the "peace" that was never won.

...but winning the "peace" isn't relevant for USD to be dominant. For that, the US just needs to be able to destroy enemy armies - which it can do globally with impunity.

That simply isn't true - the amount of cost sunk into not achieving objectives was enormous. Destroying the Iraqi army was never going to be the hard part. And how you can say we "won" in afghanistan, even though the taliban still exist and will have a part of the future there, is just...wow.

> ...but winning the "peace" isn't relevant for USD to be dominant. For that, the US just needs to be able to destroy enemy armies - which it can do globally with impunity.

Comments like these make me want to ask people who make them: how did empires ever fall, then?

The US army isn't a perpetual motion machine. It requires soldiers, equipment, and technology.

* 71% of young people between 17-24 are unfit to serve, 31% of that is due to obesity alone

* Equipment requires a strong manufacturing base, much of which has been decimated since World War 2, the skill required for that workforce simply doesn't exist.

* Cost. US military equipment costs are extremely high. The cost proposition is almost always a losing one for the US in any long term war.

Greater generals have overcome greater differences in strength than between the US and China. Pride comes before the fall.

>That simply isn't true - the amount of cost sunk into not achieving objectives was enormous.

The Afghanistan war is a different story, but the iraq war was won though in messy fashion. US achieved every objective it set out when it first initiated the war. Iraqis now also have a democracy and levels of violence in Iraq are at the lowest levels in a long time. Honestly, looking into the Iraq war doesn't demonstrate the US militaries inefficiency. It shows how far ahead it is of every other country on earth. No other nation would even be able to bring it's military over to the gulf. They just don't have the logistic capability.

The debate should not be on the efficacy of the US military, but on how to use it and I don't think congress has had such a debate since the mid 20th century. They need to pull back the military and then reassess what should be the next steps.

It remains to be seen whether the US objectives in Iraq were successful or not - the recent tiff b/w Trump and Iran shows that many Iraqi's are not pro-USA. Violence may be down, but at extreme cost in both dollars and men, and the problem really never left - it simply shifted to Syria. Not to mention the abandonment of key allies in Iraq, the Kurds. The fact is, US objectives are hard to quantify in Iraq, because people keep changing them to make the US look good.

You're overrating the "logistic capability" of the US here. The US used its network of allies for staging into these regions. Without that network, it would've been much more costly and difficult. On top of that, Iraq had no realistic threat to US dominance at sea. In a war against a real state actor (like China), the US would not be able to operate with impunity. Simply knocking out 2 or 3 capital ships would devastate the US capability to project force.

> and the problem really never left - it simply shifted to Syria.

I think the reason that some say that the Iraq war was never won is because they keep moving the goalposts from the stated mission during 2003.

Make Iraqi military surrender check

Overthrow Saddam Hussein check

Eliminate al-qaeda leadership in Iraq check

Establish new leader check

Establish a democratic system check

Levels of sectarian violence are also low nowadays as a bonus. Did this all take longer than estimated. Yes, but all are objectively completed. The debate is not whether the war was won, but whether it was worth winning which is kind of what you are starting to get into. Anyway, nothing much more to be done in Iraq. It is up to the Iraqi people to now decide their destiny for good or ill.

>You're overrating the "logistic capability" of the US here. The US used its network of allies for staging into these regions. Without that network, it would've been much more costly and difficult.

A network of bases in ally regions is a part of logistical capability.

>In a war against a real state actor (like China), the US would not be able to operate with impunity. Simply knocking out 2 or 3 capital ships would devastate the US capability to project force.

They could, but China has never actually demonstrated capability of doing so. The only time we have seen China in a modern fight was during the Sino-Vietnamese War. They did not fair too well with their next door neighbor. They also haven't been able to test any of their technology since then while the US at least has been able to test some of theirs except their newest big tech.

Also, I don't see US using a fullout assault on China, but more so an embargo meant to starve the China of food and energy imports. China in it's current state would not be able to deal with that.

There is no clear benefit to war anyway so I don't see China and the US getting into a direct war. China fighting with one of it's neighbors and the US helping with supplies, resources, and money is the much more likely scenario.

1-3 are the same thing. The US held most of the world's assets (was a creditor during the war), so became the world's most well capitalized bank. In that capacity, the bank's notes, i.e. dollars, became the world's currency.

Despite a run on the "bank" in the 70's, this arrangement remained.