United States' ability to maintain itself as "Number One"

[Snuggles]

Knowing that not all of you are from the US, I'd like your opinions as well!

Ok... so I'm freshly out of college. Wow. There are some really dumb, incapable people there that can get high GPA's with their 'networking ability.'

It disgusts me, absolutely. These people are now getting good jobs and going to good grad schools, and essentially... are the future of our society.

An even worse case are the incapable losers of society who are spoon fed important and high paying jobs by 'Daddy CEO'

These methods in the US of getting ahead are VERY far from being taken care of... networking is still seen as a 'good method to get your foot in the door'

Let us first focus on the people who 'networked' their way to good grades in college. My friend, who I have extreme pity for, is a prime example.

We were both Electrical Engineers in undergrad, her being a female EE (almost unheard of!!!). She would get boosted grades/averages. She would sit in our homework groups, not contribute a single thing and copy off all of us to get a high score on the homework assignments. There are 2 very specific examples I can give here, but I will only summarize them... first one is, Junior year, we were lab partners... PARTNERS... we did not finish 3... yes THREE (50%) of the labs. She ended getting an A in the class and I got an A-!!! Groups of guys who did every single lab perfectly got A-... how the hell does that work!?!?!?!? Junior year, second semester... we took a really tough exam. The smartest kid I know and I earned a 74%. She got a 93% and refused to show us her work, she said she got extra points for 'explaining why she did what she did'... we eventually looked at the exam... and it was broken down like this... every -3 we got, she got -1.

Now why do I bring this up? She recently went to a top grad school because of her astounding GPA an high recommendations from the faculty. How is she doing now? Horrifically. She is basically failing all her classes since she doesn't have us there to do her work, and the staff of our previous college to give her her boosted grads.

Now, the Daddy CEO example. I did a pre-college program, and there was this super cocky douche bag who went to some big time prep school and was never afraid to tell us how dumb he was and how he got into 'the worst college of his class'... what tool.

His dad pulled him out of college about a month into freshmen year to work as an executive at his company... guess what happened to that company about a year later? COMPLETELY UNDER!

So rehashing these examples, and considering the general ability/mind set of the public in US... I see our society completely crumbling under the extreme incompetence of all our ill-fit, spoon fed, remedial leaders.

I think in 20 years we will no longer even be a world competitor. The contributors are far outweighed by the idiot.

What is your take on this situation? Any similar experiences/examples?

[Solaris]

Read some Ayn Rand if you haven't. I think you'd identify with it.

And, for the record, I agree that we will only be able to compete for so long on sheer overbearing power alone (which is pretty much what I think we've been going on for the last 8ish years).

[1OFMANY]

Last 8? More like the last 30. the education level of the US is horrible. Everyone wants to be rich and no one values being smart anymore. We need to change or be caught with our pants down on a global level, so to speak. Nothing we can't recover form by any means, but no reason to have to struggle needlessly just cause we got lazy :(

[Antares]

Wait... Why does she get boosted GPA's? Favorism?

[danalaina]

[icky female EE major stuff]

my first thought is, she'll end up getting smacked for her actions.

my second thought is, why would you let someone copy your work?

[rwyatt365]

I understand exactly what you are saying, and I agree with 1OFMANY in that it's been over the last 20-30 years that this has been going on. Very few American strive for excellence, most strive for reward (i.e. money) – and the easier it is to get it, the better.
The fact that more and more of the American marketplace is dominated by non-US goods and services is evidence of our declining impact. It won't be long before we have to outsource our military because we can't afford the cost any more. I say that facetiously, but it may come true one day.

The Persians declined, the Egyptians declined, the Romans declined, the British declined – no reason why America won't decline. No one ever seems to learn.

[thod]

Real life is not a solitary game like chess. It is a group game. Despite your superiority you are still less than an entire group. Your focus on being the best you can be totaly ignores the fact that you are surrounded by others that are playing the game in groups.

You realise they can always outperform you in actions, so instead you focus on the intellect. A group of morons does not outthink a genius when it comes to making a correct decision. Yet even the smartest is still subject to his individual blindnesses. A group offers superior judgement in that where one is blind the other sees.

The networkers get ahead because they are playing a different game. They are able to do favors for each other. You success comes from both your individual ability AND your ability to work in the group. Niether one nor the other will propel you to the heights.

As an INTJ you are already strong at analysis. Many try to play to this strength and find they it doesnt get them too far. What you realy have to do is focus on your extroversion, your group play. This means you are going to have change your core values.

A decision may be logcialy correct, yet socialy incorrect. You would be far more successful if you focused on the second element. You cant help but use logic anyhow. A correct decision that turns everyone against you is a disaster. A popular but incorrect decision earns you favors. You need to focus all your energy on becoming a popularist not a logician.

[Solaris]

A decision may be logcialy correct, yet socialy incorrect. You would be far more successful if you focused on the second element. You cant help but use logic anyhow. A correct decision that turns everyone against you is a disaster. A popular but incorrect decision earns you favors. You need to focus all your energy on becoming a popularist not a logician.

Speaking of Ayn Rand....you sound like some of her heroes archenemies. I want to think you are doing that intentionally, but I can't really tell.

[1OFMANY]

A popular but incorrect decision earns you favors.

Thats where you went off the ledge of reason.

And the US is probly the best team player around. Well not anymore, current administration aside, we play ball rather well with others IMO. Just keep in mind there are some people in the world you don't want to do business with no matter how "popular" they are.

[thod]

You mistake my post as being about the US. It was about INTJ outlook rather than the US which has all types.

My view is that when the INTJ fails his interpretation is that it was because he wasnt uber enough. That he didnt have all the facts or that the reasoning involved. He responds by attempting to become more uber.

The alternative as in this case is not to become a better competitor but to become a better cooperator. I can see only 2 ways that he would cooperate.

He is the king controling his pawns, a master-slave relationship
He forms temporary alliances with others like himself. An equal relationship, yet each alliance is constantly judged for advantage and broken as freely as it is formed.

He simply would not be comfortable being a minor player in someone elses empire even if being that offers greater advantages than playing solo. For him self determination is more improtant than material gain. He loses out on the gains because of this. He doesnt want to have a sugar daddy handing him gifts because that is dependence and he is proud of his independence.

Its the J part of him that constantly wants to decide for itself. Having others decide and tell him what is best for him is anathema.

An ENTJ would consider if the plan is likely to work by considering others reactions. He would see if the team was against it then its not a good plan, they would resist the implementation and so the second best plan may work out better. The INTJ does not consider that he is rigid in his logical conclusion that this is best. He expects all others to follow his orders to the letter. However he is not happy about following others orders when applied to him since this impacts on his J.

[Snuggles]

First off... I'm about 200 pages away from finishing Atlas Shrugged... so good call on the Ayn Rand thing. It only furthered what I already thought pre-reading the book, haha.

Second of all... Thod... what is your point? I have no clue what you are even trying to say and I'm pretty convinced you didn't read or understand my initial post.

I'm not afraid to work with others, I'm not afraid to not be the lead. I mean, I just started my career, it wasn't like, after 2 weeks I was like "wow, i'm not CEO yet? This place sucks!!!"

...and I'm not afraid to go to other people for help... I got my first internship through a teacher recommending me for a digital signal engineering project.

You bring all this 'uber' speak in (are you german?)... yet you act 'uber' yourself (hypocrite POWER!!!) and as if you are omnipotent and know everything about every INTJ ever.

I think my point was best summed up by rwyatt... people want the most amount of money for the least amount of effort... how did this get so mis-translated? Where did you get the idea of 'cannot handle being a minor player' come from?

I just want to live in a society of capable people who earn their positions. Looks like you fully made the list of 'expendable persons.' Congrats.

[iamnotspock]

I too have stories of women being advanced over much more capable men in mathematics and economics for the sake of "diversity".

Long run, though, they will fail. You simply can't fake it in math, science, and technical jobs. Nor in industry (Witness HP CEO Carly Fiorina, who also destroyed Bell Labs).

The shame of it is who didn't get the opportunity b/c of them and what it costs institutions, tax-payers, etc. when the incompetent are elevated over the capable.

[OmegaPsi]

I just want to live in a society of capable people who earn their positions. Looks like you fully made the list of 'expendable persons.' Congrats.

ive said it once and Im going to say it again, Woot of Technocratic-Democracy! =) (or it might just end up like a Technocratic-Oligarchy...I might need to make a thread on that..)

[Solaris]

First off... I'm about 200 pages away from finishing Atlas Shrugged... so good call on the Ayn Rand thing. It only furthered what I already thought pre-reading the book, haha.



She does leave quite a mark on most NTs (good or bad).

[OmegaPsi]

A decision may be logcialy correct, yet socialy incorrect. You would be far more successful if you focused on the second element. You cant help but use logic anyhow. A correct decision that turns everyone against you is a disaster. A popular but incorrect decision earns you favors. You need to focus all your energy on becoming a popularist not a logician.

I dissagree, through proper manipulation you can do just as good on logic as you would popularity.

[thod]

I dissagree, through proper manipulation you can do just as good on logic as you would popularity.

The manipulation you need though is a social skill, you need to be a manipulator of people. People are not logical systems.

Having spent my whole life in engineering/IT environments I have seen who moves into management and up the corporate ladders. It isnt the best engineers, they are left in place. Its invariably the more extrovert types that get promoted. Its not something you can change my mind about with theories. It would not be rational of me to ignore my observed facts. Being good at what you do counts for little, corporations are about politics, if you dont play by their rules you are left behind. Being good at politics means making friends and making friends means extroversion.

There is a good reason they call the ENTJ "the executive". As an INTJ you lack that E. Becoming more E and less I is what you need to work on if you want to rise to the top.
Logical thought is your NT part, thats fine already, work on your weakness which is your social skills.

[iamnotspock]

Becoming more E and less I is what you need to work on if you want to rise to the top.
Logical thought is your NT part, thats fine already, work on your weakness which is your social skills.

I disagree strongly. Putting a square peg in a round whole == much pain. INTJ's rise to the top of organizations as strategic advisors or technical wizards. If you are *right* or you are *good* you don't have to be *popular*. They also conquer the earth when they build their own systems instead of playing inside someone else's. These are the INTJ industrialists and entrepreneurs. As well as creative visionaries.

Ultimately, the biggest bang for your buck is to exploit your advantage -- not to build on your weakness. The latter is a common misconception, though, and a major strategic blunder. Don't go there.

[rocksteady]

I disagree strongly. Putting a square peg in a round whole == much pain. INTJ's rise to the top of organizations as strategic advisors or technical wizards. If you are *right* or you are *good* you don't have to be *popular*. They also conquer the earth when they build their own systems instead of playing inside someone else's. These are the INTJ industrialists and entrepreneurs. As well as creative visionaries.

Ultimately, the biggest bang for your buck is to exploit your advantage -- not to build on your weakness. The latter is a common misconception, though, and a major strategic blunder. Don't go there.


each experience can be different i'm sure, but more E is an absolute advantage in the real world, from every aspect i'm aware of.

[radioactivez0r]

Learn Chinese, and you'll be good to go in the near future.

[xhaan]

So rehashing these examples, and considering the general ability/mind set of the public in US... I see our society completely crumbling under the extreme incompetence of all our ill-fit, spoon fed, remedial leaders.

I think in 20 years we will no longer even be a world competitor. The contributors are far outweighed by the idiot.

What is your take on this situation? Any similar experiences/examples?

I can see it happening, and frankly, I hope it does, while I'm still young enough to adapt.

[OmegaPsi]

The manipulation you need though is a social skill, you need to be a manipulator of people. People are not logical systems.

Having spent my whole life in engineering/IT environments I have seen who moves into management and up the corporate ladders. It isnt the best engineers, they are left in place. Its invariably the more extrovert types that get promoted. Its not something you can change my mind about with theories. It would not be rational of me to ignore my observed facts. Being good at what you do counts for little, corporations are about politics, if you dont play by their rules you are left behind. Being good at politics means making friends and making friends means extroversion.

There is a good reason they call the ENTJ "the executive". As an INTJ you lack that E. Becoming more E and less I is what you need to work on if you want to rise to the top.
Logical thought is your NT part, thats fine already, work on your weakness which is your social skills.

I can just as easily become an E as I am an I, I just choose I because I would much rather be by myself and on the computer alone than at a party, but if it was necceary I could easily fool (and sustain that for years.) anyone I needed to get that promotion or knock someone down. I actually have extremely good social skills,It might be because my father was in the military and he owns a buisness so were always moving around and meeting new people and hosting parties for his clients, and as his son I must act "Respectable,Hospitable, and becoming of someone whos had some education and manners" Pretty much in a nutshell ive been taught over my llife so far lol.

But I understand what your getting at.

[lowtech redneck]

"networking" and a broken education system are two different things. The United States is likely deficient in the latter, but what makes you think that other countries forgo networking? In fact, statist policies (in keeping with the apparent Ayn Rand theme) are more pronounced in most other industrialized countries, while many developing countries are culturally predisposed to family or clan networks. And in defense of thod, I think he is saying that even the most capable individuals have limited capacities, while groups combine the limited but differentiated capacities and knowledge of its members. In terms of productivity, its the difference between the specialization of individuals within a modern economy versus the relatively self-sufficient farmer of yesterday. Networking within groups is unavoidable, as they are social by nature; you simply need the correct institutions in place to maximize the potential of (fluctuating) groups, which is basically what the market mechanism does by rewarding impersonal results and providing necessary information.

Read the works of Friedrich Hayek for a much better explanation of what I'm trying to get across. Anyways, I think the educational system is worrisome, but I am not overly concerned about our nation's prospects relative to most other countries.

[Snuggles]

In fact, statist policies (in keeping with the apparent Ayn Rand theme) are more pronounced in most other industrialized countries, while many developing countries are culturally predisposed to family or clan networks.

Well... that's the point, that's not the best method for the leaders of your work force. That's why we're driving ourselves down. Instead of 'earning your position' you are instead being handed a position because of a connection. Why do think countries that do this are not prosperous?

Reminds me of a quote from Arrested Developement... "...people get this idea that it will work, but it never does... however... I think it will work for us!"

Though not exactly the same... it's headed in that direction.

And in defense of thod, I think he is saying that even the most capable individuals have limited capacities, while groups combine the limited but differentiated capacities and knowledge of its members.

If that's what thod was trying to say, it was said poorly and came out as a condescending rant towards 'INTJs' from an 'INTP'... (I happen to be like 50/50 J/P, depends on the test)... he preached this 'social networking' talk as if all INTJ's are oblivious to ways of getting ahead if they wanted to.

I completely agree that in almost all instances, you need people of varying skill sets. I'm not saying I don't want to work with other personality types, that's just ignorant, I'm saying I don't want to work with people who cannot do work competently, regardless of the MBTI testing.

I don't know how I can say it anymore clearly...

[thod]

Well... that's the point, that's not the best method for the leaders of your work force. That's why we're driving ourselves down. Instead of 'earning your position' you are instead being handed a position because of a connection. Why do think countries that do this are not prosperous?


But they are prosperous. You are ranting about nepotism, where you get you position due to being someones nephew etc. This leaves an inferior in the job and is a bad thing.

But getting a job via your skills in social networking is not a bad thing. You have demonstrated you are the best networker and thats important. When you are still an entry level engineer you see things in terms of "what you know". As you move up though you no longer do "real" work. You dont even manage those line workers. You manage a team of other managers. You have experts to do all the knowing for you, bright young things to come up with all the ideas. Your job is none of these, its to evaluate the people and keep them all pulling in the same direction. What you know about a subject doe not matter. What matters is what you know about people. You will observe top executives moving from one industry to another they know nothing about and doing well. The skill set they are using is the same in both positions.

You can come to me and tell me you can build anything you want, show me paper to prove it. I will still give the contract to the guy I have known for 20 years because when he tells me he can do it, i believe him, he has never let me down. You are a risk I dont have to take. When I have a problem, I dont want to research the answer, I want to ask someone who knows. As a networker you can always do that and know the person at the other end.

Get away from the idea that you are doing any of the work yourself or that even anyone you manage will do any of the work you begin to see the value in the other skill set.

As an example from my past. Our biggest customer came to us and said they had been made a better offer from one of our competitors. We had to lower prices to compete. Tough call, we didnt want to lose that business. My boss at the time called up his freind in the competitor company and found no such offer had been made, we rejected the price cut. Although the 2 companies are rivals they are only rivals when it suits them and lowering prices doesnt. He would no doubt make the same claim to the other company soon. You may disagree calling for perfect markets but this is the real world and advantages are where you find them.

[Snuggles]

But they are prosperous. You are ranting about nepotism, where you get you position due to being someones nephew etc. This leaves an inferior in the job and is a bad thing.

What countries are we talking about that do this and are prosperous? I am admittedly only thinking about a place like Africa and cannot see how you could say any country in that continent is prosperous.

But getting a job via your skills in social networking is not a bad thing. You have demonstrated you are the best networker and thats important. When you are still an entry level engineer you see things in terms of "what you know". As you move up though you no longer do "real" work. You dont even manage those line workers. You manage a team of other managers. You have experts to do all the knowing for you, bright young things to come up with all the ideas. Your job is none of these, its to evaluate the people and keep them all pulling in the same direction. What you know about a subject doe not matter. What matters is what you know about people. You will observe top executives moving from one industry to another they know nothing about and doing well. The skill set they are using is the same in both positions.

You can come to me and tell me you can build anything you want, show me paper to prove it. I will still give the contract to the guy I have known for 20 years because when he tells me he can do it, i believe him, he has never let me down. You are a risk I dont have to take. When I have a problem, I dont want to research the answer, I want to ask someone who knows. As a networker you can always do that and know the person at the other end.

Get away from the idea that you are doing any of the work yourself or that even anyone you manage will do any of the work you begin to see the value in the other skill set.

As an example from my past. Our biggest customer came to us and said they had been made a better offer from one of our competitors. We had to lower prices to compete. Tough call, we didnt want to lose that business. My boss at the time called up his freind in the competitor company and found no such offer had been made, we rejected the price cut. Although the 2 companies are rivals they are only rivals when it suits them and lowering prices doesnt. He would no doubt make the same claim to the other company soon. You may disagree calling for perfect markets but this is the real world and advantages are where you find them.

Being a systems engineer, I am fully aware of this. You are still being extremely condescending as if I'm some idiot trying to preach some nonsensical point and I want a society of people who all live in a one room building where they design and build entire cities, transportation devices, and entertainment items all by themselves.

It was really hard for me to get into systems engineering.... I mean... I just got done with a senior project where I slaved for weeks on a microchip so I could get the thing to do what I wanted it to.

Now here I am... I get an email... "there is a problem with x"... so.. what do I do? I pass it on to someone else. I don't get to go to the lab and fix 'x'... I right a report on it... send it to someone else... wait for them to tell me what's up... then send it back to the vendor/customer/whatever.

Your definition of "Social Networking" seems to equally defined as "Systems Engineering"

...and as for your story... great example of 'idiots in charge.' Your best customer... led by some conniving asshole... decides to lie to you about the industry. What a solid maneuver. That's where I want to be, a society of liars and shady business. Let's make a buck for ourselves and not care if the whole world goes down.

[radioactivez0r]

But getting a job via your skills in social networking is not a bad thing. You have demonstrated you are the best networker and thats important. When you are still an entry level engineer you see things in terms of "what you know". As you move up though you no longer do "real" work. You dont even manage those line workers. You manage a team of other managers. You have experts to do all the knowing for you, bright young things to come up with all the ideas. Your job is none of these, its to evaluate the people and keep them all pulling in the same direction. What you know about a subject doe not matter. What matters is what you know about people. You will observe top executives moving from one industry to another they know nothing about and doing well. The skill set they are using is the same in both positions.



Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but you seem to be under the impression that a scenario like that has any kind of inherent interest or value other than making a bunch of money, while I look at it and go "blech, that sounds like just about the most boring job imaginable".

[terencec]

What is your take on this situation? Any similar experiences/examples?

As an engineer, I had boss in big company did not know much and he/she would give me evalutation!. He/she got the job because she had good networking. Sometimes, it makes me wondering if it is worth to study so hard in college in order to "work/please" for a stupid person

This happens at all kind of jobs. An actress gets the role because she sleeps with the director. The singer gets the job because she sleeps with somebody. The guy gets promotion because he kisses ass.

Nobody says that the most competent guy gets the job (Nobody makes this rule). If we study the Government jobs, I bet we see a lot of high level jobs are given to Bush friends whether they are the best fit to the jobs. This is life and I already accept it.

I think you are still relatively new in the industrial. After you work in the industrial for a while, you will just accept it because there is really nothing you can do (it is sad but it is true). We cannot change the world so we can only change ourselves to fit into the world!

[lowtech redneck]

What countries are we talking about that do this and are prosperous? I am admittedly only thinking about a place like Africa and cannot see how you could say any country in that continent is prosperous.


Prosperous countries with pronounced statist tendencies would include just about all of Europe. Corporatism combined with a greater amount of government intervention overall leads to business success being more dependent on political connections than is the case in the United States. Countries such as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have become prosperous while retaining family and clan networks. Greater reliance on a free market meritocracy is theoretically more productive, but enabling conditions (i.e. infrastructure) and institutions (both formal and informal/cultural) are necessary for theory to become reality.

For a better explanation of this line of reasoning, check out William Easterly's website at To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Be sure to read about the ongoing Easterly/Jeffrey Sachs feud; its hilarious as well as informative.

[terencec]

The manipulation you need though is a social skill, you need to be a manipulator of people. People are not logical systems.

Having spent my whole life in engineering/IT environments I have seen who moves into management and up the corporate ladders. It isnt the best engineers, they are left in place. Its invariably the more extrovert types that get promoted. Its not something you can change my mind about with theories. It would not be rational of me to ignore my observed facts. Being good at what you do counts for little, corporations are about politics, if you dont play by their rules you are left behind. Being good at politics means making friends and making friends means extroversion.

There is a good reason they call the ENTJ "the executive". As an INTJ you lack that E. Becoming more E and less I is what you need to work on if you want to rise to the top.
Logical thought is your NT part, thats fine already, work on your weakness which is your social skills.

I have been an engineer for 10 years, in general, I do agree what you said. But I don't think being politics means "only" making friends. It may imply he/she has to play "dirty, unfair, unethnically or even unlawfully" which may be very different from his/her core values. If one only cares about rising to the top, then your advice may work well (Your observation was also my obsrvation years ago and I make the same conclusion as yours) To promote the one who has only very good networking is not necessary the best decision. IMO, as a manager, he or she should have both "social skills" and "some technical skills" in the field.

However, I don't think you answered what the original poster asked.

[anthrogirl]

I don't think the US will continue on being the world's number one superpower mainly because history proves that empires rise and fall. Currently many countries in the world do not feel particularly charitable towards the US and it's foreign policy under Bush has been a disaster. Witnesses the fast rising of leftists government in South America (that the US hasn't tried to crush since it's tangled up in Iraq), it's only going to increase. My sociology professor told us a few years ago 'if you want to prepare for the future learn Chinese', then I saw someone here said that, ha ha. Seriously though China has a huge population, they are very disciplined and group minded, and now they know how make all the stuff we want (since western countries outsourced all their products, thus we also lost the manufacturing skills we once had), combine that with the US's huge budget deficit and falling dollar and we can see where this is heading, personally though I would still prefer the US than China, better the devil you know.

[Jed3]

All I want to say is I'm glad I live in Australia.

[AgentofGaming]

Invest in India and China while you can, the US hasn't been looking so good.
All your cheap daily needs come from China.
All your clothes come from India.
A lot of your cars come from Japan, and American manufacturers are struggling to compete.

Actually I found North America to be a lot less advanced than I thought in some ways. Like in Canada GO transit still uses diesel trains, meanwhile in Germany they have MAGLEV trains which probably operate 4X faster and more efficient. At least the US still has Silicon Valley, although outsourcing to India is also happening (ever notice when you phone tech support it's often some guy with an accent?)

[Provoker]

Great thread.

Some have mentioned this has been the trend of about the last 8 years, others have claimed it's about the last 20-30 years, but I think it goes even further back to when the Russian's launched Sputnik in 1957. I think this was one one of earlier indicators that while the US had attained collusus sums of wealth and great properity they were not on the cutting edge of intelligence.

Thod:

You've brought forth some very interesting issues. In particular, the one concerning what is logically correct and what is socially correct. You claimed something can be logically correct while socially incorrect. I agree on this point. But then you claimed that people are not logical systems. On this point I disagree. I think people, while complex and sophisticated, can be broken down the way a math problem can. I think people can be cracked the way codes are cracked. A more complex person just requires a more intelligent code-breaker. In The Prince, Machiavelli, who was a proponent of realpolitik, proffers what is basically a manual for controlling people and sustaining personal power. He essentially defines (what he considers to be) features of human nature, and goes on to claim that these features can be exploited for personal power. In this case, people are just systems available to be mastered by another.

Smuggles:

Can the US maintain itself as number one?

I doubt it. First, over-rated military might. The war in Iraq really illustrates the over-inflated sense of power the Bush Admin had. The intelligence was insufficient (there turned out to be no WMD). The plan crafted by Rumsfeld to be 'quick and efficient' was horrible in postwar conditions, (you can't just bomb a countries vital infrastructure and expect a small readymade army to get things up and running soon after. There was not enough boots on the ground, and the soldiers had virtually no counter-insurgency training. Moreover, being an imperialist is very costly and I think Americans are learning that the gains from the oil contracts doesn't justify the hit it has taken on their economy. Moreover, the US as the twenty-first century military juggernaut bent on global domination is NOT sustainable. Having a policy of unilateralism and preemption is extremely expensive. I think the US is finding that out.

Besides these internal factors there are international factors as well. China's economy and GDP is growing at a very fast rate. Hugo Chavez has aligned Venezuela with Cuba and China. On top of this the US has destroyed its reputation and credibility in the international arena by going into Iraq on the pretext of WMD. Hopefully, a new President can restore the US reputation and credibility as I do not mistake that Bush is the poster-boy for all Americans. He has definately caused a lot of damage though.

For these reasons (and others), I think the unipolar system is slowly decaying. I see a bipolar system as possibly emerging, like in the Cold War, with the US +allies and China + allies as the main players.