> >And I've said this before, but it's worth saying again: anyone who thinks
a
> >world dominated by several economic powers, instead of one, is a recipe
for
> >human progress, should go and examine world history from 1870 to 1914;
that
> >will be our precursor.
>
> So does that mean you think a US-dominated world is the best of any
> immediately plausible alternative?
The short answer is: better the devil we know. I mean, imperial rivalry --- expressed ultimately in World War 1 --- hastened the Russian revolution, but IMO it set back the cause of socialism/communism in the west by decades.
Grant.