It wasn't military might that made the 20th Century the 'American' Century, for all of the gains in that area, as well as those in science and society were made on the strong back of the American economy. Today, all economic and business discussion revolves around China. If that is not prominence, then I know not what is.

Are you kidding? WW2 made America.

I didn't mean to imply that the strength of a nation's economy does not matter, but I don't see that China's economy rules the world. Rather, the world rules China's economy. But hey, I'm no economist!

WWII did in fact make America. However, it made America because it made America the world's leading exporter of goods and services. It made large amounts of the world dependent upon American machines, American technology, American weapons, American logistics, and most of all, American money. It is no different than the fact that it was the East India Trading Company, not the Royal Navy, that rendered the Indian subcontinent unto the Crown. It's always about the economy.

It was WW1 that made America as it demolished so much of the old world order and sent the rest into terminal decline.

I disagree. Following the creation of the League of Nations, the United States, for the most part, withdrew from global politics; pursuing a policy of diplomatic isolationism and economic protctionism. It is why we were, essentially, late to the party for WWII. The opposite policy was taken after 1945, which is what truly lead to the US's position as a world leader.

But wasn't it WW2 that gave the American industrial machine a massive NOS injection?

Regardless, I disagree that nations rise to prominence through planning, and I especially disagree that economic growth has much at all to do with planning. If a nation suddenly discovers a massive new supply of valuable materials, or if the global economy shifts in such a way as to make a particular commodity much more (or less) valuable than it was previously, then the economies of the different nations will shift accordingly. No planning in that.

That was because WW1 had left it in a position where it was able to so while the former powers(those that still existed) found themselves vainly continuing resisting their inevitable slide due to the global upheaval that demolished the very trade and diplomacy positions which had made them powers in the first place.
You pointed out for example how the EIC with all the trade from and to the sub-continent was instumental in building the British world power.
Indian trade like all maritime trade suffered greatly in WW1 and never recovered in the interwar period.
WW 2 just finished off the process for the remaining european powers which was already irreversable anyway

But remember, we're not talking about a open, democratic nation like Great Britian or the United States. The totalitarian nature of the Chinese system lends exactly to this kind of planning. The histories of these types of systems are littered with examples of 5-year, 15-year and 30-year plans. The type of development in Chinese industry and technology certainly points to a concerted effort by the government, which I do not find at all surprising.

I see what you are saying, and I agree with it. However, a nation can only exert global influence if it choses to exert it. The policy of the United States from 1919 until 1941, with exception to meddlings in China and, of course, Lend-Lease, was specifically not to exert influence. It was only the thread of the Soviet sphere of influence, and to that extent the famous urging of Churchill's 'Iron Curtain' analogy, that changed that policy. Otherwise, the US would have likely gone back into it's shell, so to speak.

Then there is the point that except for the TR years, the US was essentially isolationist before WW1 as well.