[vitobcn]

There is a great 2009 article from Stratfor [1] (The Geopolitics of the United States, Part 1: The Inevitable Empire) which outlines how America came to be the country it was in the 20th century.

The article attributes most of American strengths to geographical advantages and previous geopolitical moves. It's quite a long article, and even if you don't agree with Stratfor views, I would really recommend reading it.

[1] : http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/geopolitics-united-states-p...

[karmacondon]

Seconding this, it was a great article. Every now and then you come across a piece online that seems intimidatingly long but is utterly worth it. This expanded my perspectives on geopolitics and how nations become superpowers.

To sum it up in one word: Rivers. It seems somewhat counter intuitive, but the article explains how a network of navigable rivers makes all the difference. If the factors in an economy are Land + Labor + Capital, rivers drastically increase the capital side of things. Generally it costs 10X less to ship goods via water as opposed to over land. Countries that are well connected by rivers can ship things much more cheaply and as a result have a lot more money to re-invest in growth. Arid farming plains and having few access points for hostile neighbors also help a lot, but rivers make a big difference. This Stratfor report had several other unexpected insights along these lines and was definitely worth the read.

[g0v]

I'm reading this article and Sratfor says:

"It is worth briefly explaining why Stratfor fixates on navigable rivers as opposed to coastlines. First, navigable rivers by definition service twice the land area of a coastline (rivers have two banks, coasts only one). Second, rivers are not subject to tidal forces, greatly easing the construction and maintenance of supporting infrastructure. Third, storm surges often accompany oceanic storms, which force the evacuation of oceanic ports. None of this eliminates the usefulness of coastal ports, but in terms of the capacity to generate capital, coastal regions are a poor second compared to lands with navigable rivers."

This is just after explaining all the economic benefits to a river system like that of the Mississippi. I am just wondering now about the time after which the ice caps have receded and the river system in question occupies more land; would it be wrong to think that this could possibly increase its potential economic output?

[sdenton4]

Alas, times have change, and St Louis (for example) had its peak population in the mid 50's. We use trucks to move things, now, rather than rivers.

[protomyth]

I would like to see where you get your statistics since barge traffic on the Mississippi is very strong. Trucks get it to the elevators and the barges get it to the ocean. A bump in the road occurred during the drought of 2013, but barge traffic seemed to recover.

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_26504408/mississippi-...

[rgbrenner]

Take a look at Figure 2.7 on this page: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/bottlenecks/chap2.htm

It's from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. It shows the amount of freight (by value, tons, and ton-miles) for each transportation method.

Water (not just the mississippi, but all inland waterways and costal barges) is 6% by tons, 1% by value, and 9% by ton-miles.

The larger the economy gets, the more goods must be shipped via other modes. At the end of the day, only so much can fit on the Mississippi.

[protomyth]

Yes, trucks do deliver more than anything, but that is the nature of roads, UPS, FedEx, and the post office. The Mississippi is a large conduit of bulk items. It is also cheaper to ship than truck or rail ( https://www.cavs.msstate.edu/publications/docs/2013/03/11509... ) with rail being cheaper than truck.

From a little farther in the same article "The water transportation system, including coastal and inland-waterway barge service, is critically important for the transportation of heavy, bulky grains, clays, gravels, etc."

It goes on to talk about adding capacity to the waterways. Plus, you seem to be skipping the multimode column.

> The larger the economy gets, the more goods must be shipped via other modes. At the end of the day, only so much can fit on the Mississippi.

The report you cite is basically is talking about the need for more capacity of our roads. The Mississippi River barge transport is not going away (and expanding) because it is cheap with good infrastructure.

[IndianAstronaut]

One thing I am intrigued by is not why China or India or Germany didn't rival the US, those reasons are well known. But Brazil really could have come up as a competing power. It achieved independence early, had huge natural resources, roughly the same land area as the US, and generally adopted western culture.