In the national discourse about the USA’s place in the global order, we stand at a philosophical crossroads that will define our future prosperity. Geopolitical rivals and fundamental shifts in global demographics and economic distribution are challenging the traditional narrative of American exceptionalism.
Consider this paradox: While we proudly embrace minimalism and celebrate sustainability, consumption habits tell a dramatically different story. The average American owns over 300,000 items, with personal storage becoming a $38 billion industry that has grown faster than any other real estate segment (for decades). They purchase 64 new garments annually— 400 percent more clothing than we did just two decades ago— while wearing each item only seven times on average before discarding it.
Meanwhile, subscription services have exploded, promising to simplify American lives while steadily filling their homes with products they didn’t know they needed. Even as they share articles about decluttering and lecture others about environmental responsibility, their homes have become warehouses for an endless stream of goods that require ever-expanding storage solutions. They simultaneously condemn overconsumption while participating at unprecedented levels, maintaining the comforting illusion of conscious consumption. At the same time, the physical evidence of this behaviour piles up in closets, garages, and storage units— physical monuments to the gap between professed values and actual behaviour.
This consumption paradox extends to our view of the USA’s global position. According to World Bank data, the USA represents just four percent of the global population but accounts for approximately 24 percent of global GDP. As education and economic development accelerate across Asia, Africa, and Latin America-the US share of global output will inevitably decline (in relative terms). By 2050, economists at PwC project that China’s economy will be 130 percent the size of America’s, with India not far behind.
The policy question is profound: How should the USA respond to this new multipolar reality?
One school of thought insists that US primacy must be preserved at all costs— through military spending that exceeds the following nine countries combined ($801 billion in 2021), trade policies designed to constrain rivals, and dollar hegemony maintenance. Proponents argue that this approach preserves US security and prosperity.
As Albert Einstein reputedly observed, insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly while expecting different results. The USA’s current approach to global leadership may soon meet this definition. A wiser path awaits if it dares to take it.
But this strategy faces mathematical impossibility. Nations with populations four times our size will eventually reach significant fractions of our per capita productivity. The only way the USA could permanently remain the world’s largest economy would require keeping billions of people in relative poverty— a morally indefensible position that inevitably breeds conflict.
There is an alternative path forward that deserves greater attention. Rather than viewing global development as a threat, we might embrace it as an opportunity. The USA can thrive through leadership in innovation, education, and the cultivation of mutually beneficial international relationships, not by dominance.
This approach would prioritize investments in research and development (currently at 3.1 percent of GDP compared to South Korea’s 4.8 percent), educational excellence, and diplomatic engagement. It would recognize that a more prosperous global middle class creates larger US products and services markets. It would acknowledge that attempting to maintain absolute supremacy through confrontation diverts resources from more productive investments and increases security risks.
The most pragmatic course for the USA isn’t perpetual conflict to maintain dominance but strategic adaptation to a changing world. By enhancing our capabilities while engaging constructively with rising powers, we can secure a prosperous future without requiring others to remain disadvantaged.
As Albert Einstein reputedly observed, insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly while expecting different results. The USA’s current approach to global leadership may soon meet this definition. A wiser path awaits if it dares to take it.
