Non-political indicators of being a top world power

Hugal

I have noticed that there are a lot of similarities between the UK in Victorian times and the modern USA.
A high level of patriotism, a high level of sentimentality for instance. These are much less prevalent now that we (UK) are not the top dogs. There are others I could think of.
What are other indicators we can think of?

North East Quine

Public religiosity?

I'm not American, but in Victorian Britain a family could be badly hit by doctor's bills, and left destitute if an illness worked its way through a whole family. And as I understand it, medical bankruptcy happens in America today.

But by contrast, Victorian society in Britain was marked by rapid urbanisation, mechanisation, the expansion of transport, the advancement of science etc etc, which have already happened in America, rather being a feature of C21st century life.

Nick Tamen

Can someone explain the thread title to me? Is been supposed to be being? None?

Bishops Finger

I read it as *Non-political indicators of being a top world power*, which I'm guessing is how @North East Quine read it, too.

BroJames

I have tweaked the title.

BroJames, Purgatory Host

Nick Tamen

Ah, thank you. I was trying to make none mean nine, but that didn’t work either.

Sober Preacher's Kid

Musing about annexing another country *ahem* for kicks.

Bishops Finger

Public religiosity, as mentioned by @North East Quine, certainly no longer seems to be a factor in the UK.

The reports of church services by an early Mystery Worshipper - Rev C Maurice Davies - published in newspapers in the 1870s very rarely feature the tiny congregations we see nowadays...OTOH, he reports on services where there were comparatively vast crowds, it being the fashion at that time to go to church to hear *fashionable* preachers.

(One exception was a Sunday morning meeting of the surviving followers of Joanna Southcott, at which Rev Davies was the only non-Southcottian member of the congregation of four...).

Alan Cresswell

Even corrected the thread title makes no sense to me. Being a world power, or wanting to be, is inherently political. In what sense could that not be political?

Crœsos

North East Quine wrote: »

Public religiosity?

I'm not American, but in Victorian Britain a family could be badly hit by doctor's bills, and left destitute if an illness worked its way through a whole family. And as I understand it, medical bankruptcy happens in America today.

But by contrast, Victorian society in Britain was marked by rapid urbanisation, mechanisation, the expansion of transport, the advancement of science etc etc, which have already happened in America, rather being a feature of C21st century life.

I think if you're looking for non-political markers of a certain political standing what's being excluded is at least as important as what's being included. There are a lot of countries that are, at best, regional powers that also display a high level of public religiosity, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Vatican City.

Gramps49

Almost all markers of a world leader has political ramifications. I don't see how it can be avoided.

I have been getting moving graphs on production outcomes over the last 50 years. Each year shows the top 20 producers of a product. While the US starts out at the top of most graphs, it is quite interesting to see how we slowly move down the list over the years while other countries move to the top. The one conclusion I have gotten from these charts, is that the US is not quite the world leader as we once thought we were.

Crœsos

To clarify things, here is a list of what Robert Farley (a professor of security and diplomacy courses at the Patterson School) considers to be the eight great powers of the world at the end of 2024, along with his explanations for why each country is on the list, and why they're in the position on the list they're in. He admits that the eighth place on the list could plausibly go to any number of countries.

Gramps49 wrote: »

I have been getting moving graphs on production outcomes over the last 50 years. Each year shows the top 20 producers of a product. While the US starts out at the top of most graphs, it is quite interesting to see how we slowly move down the list over the years while other countries move to the top. The one conclusion I have gotten from these charts, is that the US is not quite the world leader as we once thought we were.

Here's an article from Paul Krugman's substack making the case that America's superior economic performance is driven mostly by its tech sector, for reasons which are historically contingent on a couple of essentially random factors which led to geographic clustering.

Sighthound

I look forward to the UKGBNI slipping further down the list. When we are as insignificant as (say) Portugal, we may no longer have deranged foreign plutocrats attempting to interfere in our private internal affairs.

My suggestion is a word close to arrogance or complacency. The feeling that one's country is unassailable and that there is no need to boast about how important it is. That's the mark of a truly great power. Visible jingoism is a sign of insecurity, the belief that 'specialness' is slipping away.

Alan Cresswell

“A strong nation, like a strong person, can afford to be gentle, firm, thoughtful, and restrained. It can afford to extend a helping hand to others. It is a weak nation, like a weak person, that must behave with bluster and boasting and rashness and other signs of insecurity.” Jimmy Carter, RIP.

Ruth

Sighthound wrote: »

My suggestion is a word close to arrogance or complacency. The feeling that one's country is unassailable and that there is no need to boast about how important it is. That's the mark of a truly great power. Visible jingoism is a sign of insecurity, the belief that 'specialness' is slipping away.

A country, like a person, may be objectively very powerful yet feel insecure.