NationStates Jolt Archive

From the beeb
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7645743.stm)

US superpower status is shaken

By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent, BBC News website

US Congress
Will Uncle Sam still bestride the world in future?
The financial crisis is likely to diminish the status of the United States as the world's only superpower.

On the practical level, the US is already stretched militarily, in Afghanistan and Iraq, and is now stretched financially.

On the philosophical level, it will be harder for it to argue in favour of its free market ideas, if its own markets have collapsed.

Pivotal moment?

Some see this as a pivotal moment.

The political philosopher John Gray, who recently retired as a professor at the London School of Economics, wrote in the London paper The Observer: "Here is a historic geopolitical shift, in which the balance of power in the world is being altered irrevocably.

"The era of American global leadership, reaching back to the Second World War, is over... The American free-market creed has self-destructed while countries that retained overall control of markets have been vindicated."

"In a change as far-reaching in its implications as the fall of the Soviet Union, an entire model of government and the economy has collapsed.

"How symbolic that Chinese astronauts take a spacewalk while the US Treasury Secretary is on his knees."

No apocalypse now

Not all would agree that an American apocalypse has arrived. After all, the system has been tested before.
America's former UN ambassador John Bolton in New York in October 2006
John Bolton gives rumours of US hegemony's demise short shrift

In 1987 the Dow Jones share index fell by more than 20% in one day. In 2000, the dot-com bubble burst. Yet both times, the US picked itself up, as it did post Vietnam.

Prof Gray's comments certainly did not impress one of the more hawkish figures who served in the Bush administration, the former UN ambassador John Bolton.

When I put them to him, he replied only: "If Professor Gray believes this, can he assure us that he is selling his US assets short?

"If so, where is he placing his money instead? And if he has no US assets, why should we be paying any attention to him?"

Nevertheless, it does seem that the concept of the single superpower left bestriding the world after the collapse of communism (and the supposed end of history) is no longer valid.

Multi-polar world

Even leading neo-conservative thinkers accept that a more multi-polar world is emerging, though one in which they want the American position to be the leading one.

Robert Kagan, co-founder in 1997 of the "Project for the New American Century" that called for "American global leadership", wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine this autumn: "Those who today proclaim that the United States is in decline often imagine a past in which the world danced to an Olympian America's tune. That is an illusion.



The US is seen as declining relatively and there has been an enormous acceleration in this perfect storm of perception in the waning days of the Bush administration


"The world today looks more like that of the 19th Century than like that of the late 20th.

"Those who imagine this is good news should recall that the 19th Century order did not end as well as the Cold War did."

"To avoid such a fate, the United States and other democratic nations will need to take a more enlightened and generous view of their interests than they did even during the Cold War. The United States, as the strongest democracy, should not oppose but welcome a world of pooled and diminished national sovereignty.

"At the same time, the democracies of Asia and Europe need to rediscover that progress toward this more perfect liberal order depends not only on law and popular will but also on powerful nations that can support and defend it."

New scepticism

The director of a leading British think-tank Chatham House, Dr Robin Niblett, who has worked on both sides of the Atlantic, remarked that, at a recent conference he attended in Berlin, an American who called for continued US leadership was met with a new scepticism.

"The US is seen as declining relatively and there has been an enormous acceleration in this perfect storm of perception in the waning days of the Bush administration. The rise of new powers, the increase in oil wealth among some countries and the spread of economic power around the world adds to this," he said.

"But we must separate the immediate moment from the structural. There is no doubt that President Bush has created some of his own problems. The overstretch of military power and the economic crisis can be laid at the door of the administration.

"Its tax cuts were not matched by the hammer of spending cuts. The combined effect of events like the failures in Iraq, the difficulties in Afghanistan, the thumbing of its nose by Russia in Georgia and elsewhere, all these lead to a sense of an end of an era.

The longer term

Dr Niblett argues that we should wait a bit before coming to a judgment and that structurally the United States is still strong.


"America is still immensely attractive to skilled immigrants and is still capable of producing a Microsoft or a Google," he went on.

"Even its debt can be overcome. It has enormous resilience economically at a local and entrepreneurial level.

"And one must ask, decline relative to who? China is in a desperate race for growth to feed its population and avert unrest in 15 to 20 years. Russia is not exactly a paper tiger but it is stretching its own limits with a new strategy built on a flimsy base. India has huge internal contradictions. Europe has usually proved unable to jump out of the doldrums as dynamically as the US.

"But the US must regain its financial footing and the extent to which it does so will also determine its military capacity. If it has less money, it will have fewer forces."

With the US presidential election looming, it will be worth returning to this subject in a year's time to see how the world, and the American place in it, looks then.

Interesting read to say the least. What do you think? Is the USA's current struggles enough to throw it from the top of the hill? Who will take its place if it does?

In regards to that last question I really liked this response:

"And one must ask, decline relative to who? China is in a desperate race for growth to feed its population and avert unrest in 15 to 20 years. Russia is not exactly a paper tiger but it is stretching its own limits with a new strategy built on a flimsy base. India has huge internal contradictions. Europe has usually proved unable to jump out of the doldrums as dynamically as the US.

Only time will tell. Ultill then I'm gonna enjoy the good life while it lasts.

Its fairly simple really, the huge multi-national companies become the super powers. In 20 years time they will be declaring war on each other, and i really really want to see the soldiers of the Coke empire fighting the elite forces of the Pepsi Coporation.

What doesn't kill us makes us stronger.
Consider what happened after our last major depression.
Actually, thinking about it, the parallels between now and the 1920's/30's are rather scary. We've got a major boom followed by a depression, a newly resurgent power in Europe (whom everybody seems keen on appeasing), and the population of the US is either apathetic or angry about the wars we've gotten ourselves into.
If you're Jewish and living in Ukraine or Belarus, I'd advise that you pack quickly.

Its fairly simple really, the huge multi-national companies become the super powers. In 20 years time they will be declaring war on each other, and i really really want to see the soldiers of the Coke empire fighting the elite forces of the Pepsi Coporation.

Heh, reminds me of Ace Combat 3: Electrosphere. It had these giant companies fighting against eachother. I think Ace Combat 5 was tied into that. Not sure.

I don't see it. of the 3 major competitors for world power they all have demographics issues.
1. China. Low birth rate and a net exodus of people.
2. Russia Same as China.
3. EU Low birth, though net immigration of people. so More cushioned to the Decline normally caused by low birth rates.
However, lacks major central control. leaving it little more then a trading bloc.
Immigrants culture is largely at odds with native culture. Things like Race riots in Paris every few years, mass protest/riots over a published cartoon suggest that the issues with immigration will plague Europe for awhile.


there is a 4th contender but he is 70 years off from really being able to step up and that's India. Population growth and economic growth leave it in prime position. Also India is the most Isolated of the 4 areas mentioned so far from US economic collapse. They are not party to the WTO/ or any FTA for that matter. Also leader of non aligned nations movement
China is in the WTO/ has a FTA with the US. and ties their currency to the dollar(its what they use that debt they buy from us for).
EU WTO FTA though they have their own independent currency.
Russia Currency issues. no one trust a currency with out less then 10 years stability.

I don't see it. of the 3 major competitors for world power they all have demographics issues.
1. China. Low birth rate and a net exodus of people.
2. Russia Same as China.
3. EU Low birth, though net immigration of people. so More cushioned to the Decline normally caused by low birth rates.
However, lacks major central control. leaving it little more then a trading bloc.
Immigrants culture is largely at odds with native culture. Things like Race riots in Paris every few years, mass protest/riots over a published cartoon suggest that the issues with immigration will plague Europe for awhile.


there is a 4th contender but he is 70 years off from really being able to step up and that's India. Population growth and economic growth leave it in prime position. Also India is the most Isolated of the 4 areas mentioned so far from US economic collapse. They are not party to the WTO/ or any FTA for that matter. Also leader of non aligned nations movement
China is in the WTO/ has a FTA with the US. and ties their currency to the dollar(its what they use that debt they buy from us for).
EU WTO FTA though they have their own independent currency.
Russia Currency issues. no one trust a currency with out less then 10 years stability.

The problem with India will be its water supplies:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/asia/29water.html

I think the US has toppled down the list if superpowers since the dollar´s losing it´s standing in the market.

I do see the decline of the US as a superpower nation, and the lack of any other viable competitor. I also see an increasing trend towards globalisation and a single universal market.

I suspect the conditions are right for the foundation of a world government; conditional on the ability to create one that bridges the capital-social divide, of course, which could be problematic.

Vive la Europe? Maybe...

I do see the decline of the US as a superpower nation, and the lack of any other viable competitor. I also see an increasing trend towards globalisation and a single universal market.

I suspect the conditions are right for the foundation of a world government; conditional on the ability to create one that bridges the capital-social divide, of course, which could be problematic.

Vive la Europe? Maybe...

You're dreaming

You're dreaming
It depends how severe the fallout of this bail-out (or lack thereof) is, I suppose. If the US seriously pulls down the rest of the world's economies with it, you're going to get a lot of non-Americans being immensely irate at the fact that international trade is so localised and demanding greater international responsibility in the Global economy. And, since much of the world is theoretically socialist, this'll involve state management of some sort, which requires a global state.

I think we need to define the terms we're using here. There's a term called hyperpower, which is generally used to define the USA in the awkward state the world was in following the collapse of the USSR in 1991. The term "superpower" is generally conceived in a plural sense; that is, superpowers.

So, the question posed can be answered with two statements. Will the United States stay a superpower? Most certainly, much in the same way that the United Kingdom and France and Germany have remained very relevant despite the past 15+ years of American hegemony. Even with the current financial crisis facing the US economy, and even with the diminished capacity for military projection due to the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States still possesses most, if not all, of the requisite characteristics of a superpower. A depression and an unpopular war will not suddenly cripple the United States.

On the other hand, if the question really means to ask whether the United States will lose its current status as a hyperpower, a superpower with no realistic rivals? Absolutely it will. It would be supremely naive to believe that the United States could carry on being the lone power in the world forever. Frankly, it is a bit surprising that the era lasted as long as it did.

The United States will lose its hyperpower status not so much because of its own regression, but because of the ascension of other nations to superpower status. The EU, China, and India are all realistic candidates to become legitimate superpowers. Russia, Brazil, and possibly Indonesia possess the possibility for real superpower status in the future. It is not so much that the United States is falling as much as it is that other nations are rising.

Hyperpowers in the sense of global domination like the United States has enjoyed for the past decade and a half are few and far between, and they inevitably do not last very long once they achieve their status. The Roman Empire, the Spanish Empire, the British Empire, the Mongol Empire; all enjoyed only relatively brief tenures as hyperpowers.

Thus concludes my long-winded response.

As a superpower, the US remains constrained in its actions in relations to large-scale regional powers, such as the Russian Federation or Iran. At the same time, the power of American culture, and economic innovation is still present. As is the fact that the US has unparallelled power projection capabilities. The US navy remains the dominant naval force on the seas.

Our close relationship with Europe, even with the tensions that the Bush administration placed on our Transatlantic allies, is also key to the fact that the US is going to remain economically and militarily potent.

I think we need to define the terms we're using here. There's a term called hyperpower, which is generally used to define the USA in the awkward state the world was in following the collapse of the USSR in 1991. The term "superpower" is generally conceived in a plural sense; that is, superpowers.

So, the question posed can be answered with two statements. Will the United States stay a superpower? Most certainly, much in the same way that the United Kingdom and France and Germany have remained very relevant despite the past 15+ years of American hegemony. Even with the current financial crisis facing the US economy, and even with the diminished capacity for military projection due to the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States still possesses most, if not all, of the requisite characteristics of a superpower. A depression and an unpopular war will not suddenly cripple the United States.

On the other hand, if the question really means to ask whether the United States will lose its current status as a hyperpower, a superpower with no realistic rivals? Absolutely it will. It would be supremely naive to believe that the United States could carry on being the lone power in the world forever. Frankly, it is a bit surprising that the era lasted as long as it did.

The United States will lose its hyperpower status not so much because of its own regression, but because of the ascension of other nations to superpower status. The EU, China, and India are all realistic candidates to become legitimate superpowers. Russia, Brazil, and possibly Indonesia possess the possibility for real superpower status in the future. It is not so much that the United States is falling as much as it is that other nations are rising.

Hyperpowers in the sense of global domination like the United States has enjoyed for the past decade and a half are few and far between, and they inevitably do not last very long once they achieve their status. The Roman Empire, the Spanish Empire, the British Empire, the Mongol Empire; all enjoyed only relatively brief tenures as hyperpowers.

Thus concludes my long-winded response.

I wish I could give you points or cookies for this post. -thumbs up-

Eh? I don't think there is any question that the US has been massively diminished in the past twelve months. You can see it right now in the way it has to deal with foreign powers in respect of its finances.

But at the end of the day, this is only a financial crisis. So it is quite possible that the US can pick itself up and remain the military and economic super-power.

That said, I suspect a lot of people won't like the type of US that comes out of the other side. So in a sense, this period of US hegemony - the moralizing, two faced, police state, safety nazi, duplicitous, lazy, fat, baby boomer, babittry loving, US - is over.

If the US does pick itself up, the next version will be slightly more hard nosed and pragmatic.

And then again, it could just slip into irrelevant mediocrity like the UK.

Its fairly simple really, the huge multi-national companies become the super powers. In 20 years time they will be declaring war on each other, and i really really want to see the soldiers of the Coke empire fighting the elite forces of the Pepsi Coporation.

If only someone could write a book with a similar premise, then they could make an internet game related to the book, then there could be some sort of internet forum with a general section where strange things are discussed by stranger people and... :eek:

Bush wants to know what his legacy will be. I think he'll be remembered as the President who ended the era of Americanism. It's not this economic meltdown, it's the arrogance of the so-called Bush Doctrine (essentially a repackage of the PNAC manifesto (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm)).

The economic issue is just a symptom. If Bush really wanted to cement the image into the history books, he'd pull out a fiddle during his next press conference and play it in front of a video of Wall Street burning.

Its fairly simple really, the huge multi-national companies become the super powers. In 20 years time they will be declaring war on each other, and i really really want to see the soldiers of the Coke empire fighting the elite forces of the Pepsi Coporation.
Nah, they'll just play Rollerball.

I think that the USA's time as a superpower is fading. I don't know who's gonna be next, but mark my words: A war WILL happen because of it.

The problem with India will be its water supplies:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/asia/29water.html

which is why I am giving it around 70 years. Though California had a similar problem early on. Though India cant steal water from its neighbors like California did. I suspect as they get richer Desalination plants will pop up around the coast and water we will be piped hundreds of miles as needed.

Bush wants to know what his legacy will be. I think he'll be remembered as the President who ended the era of Americanism. It's not this economic meltdown, it's the arrogance of the so-called Bush Doctrine (essentially a repackage of the PNAC manifesto (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm)).

The economic issue is just a symptom. If Bush really wanted to cement the image into the history books, he'd pull out a fiddle during his next press conference and play it in front of a video of Wall Street burning.Did he end it, or is he a natural result of a natural ending - is he a cause or merely a (very) visible symptom? He certainly didn't cause the situation on Wall Street, granted he didn't do anything to stop it, despite signs and warnings being issued years ago, but he did not engineer the system that was in place when he took office and it was that system that led to the problem. He just ignored the systerm's shortcomings and took a laize fair attitude towards the banking industry.

At least, that is the way I see it.

I think that the USA's time as a superpower is fading. I don't know who's gonna be next, but mark my words: A war WILL happen because of it.

The scariest time is when we have a tri polar world. historically it is the shortest last world power distribution schemes. Multi polar worlds are also Violent. bi polar are the least violent with mono polar being close behind.

If you've got enough nukes and a big enough military to fight any taker, you're going to remain a superpower even if your economy makes Somalia look prosperous. Hell, the Soviet Union had a godawful economy in the 1980's and it could still boss the United States around from time to time.

Its fairly simple really, the huge multi-national companies become the super powers. In 20 years time they will be declaring war on each other, and i really really want to see the soldiers of the Coke empire fighting the elite forces of the Pepsi Coporation.

The day is coming when the entire world is crushed under the boot of the mighty Pepsi Corporation. Personally, I'll throw my lot in with Taco Bell.:D

Bush wants to know what his legacy will be. I think he'll be remembered as the President who ended the era of Americanism. It's not this economic meltdown, it's the arrogance of the so-called Bush Doctrine (essentially a repackage of the PNAC manifesto (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm)).

The economic issue is just a symptom. If Bush really wanted to cement the image into the history books, he'd pull out a fiddle during his next press conference and play it in front of a video of Wall Street burning.

That would be awesome. I'd have new respect for him, then. Especially if he wore a toga while doing it.

Did he end it, or is he a natural result of a natural ending - is he a cause or merely a (very) visible symptom? He certainly didn't cause the situation on Wall Street, granted he didn't do anything to stop it, despite signs and warnings being issued years ago, but he did not engineer the system that was in place when he took office and it was that system that led to the problem. He just ignored the systerm's shortcomings and took a laize fair attitude towards the banking industry.

At least, that is the way I see it.

He said he ended it because of the Bush Doctrine, not the economic crisis.

I think that the USA's time as a superpower is fading. I don't know who's gonna be next, but mark my words: A war WILL happen because of it.

No there wont be.

One word: No.

All empires rise and fall. The French Empire rose to its height before invading Russia, and then collapsed. The British Empire was huge until 1947, when India and Pakistan were released. The American Empire was the greatest superpower since 1991 after the USSR fell, and will eventually fall after making a bad decision.

The only state that is directly "descended" from an ancient empire and still maintains considerable power is the PRC. They never really died, merely changed. The land area remained pretty much the same, the ruling party is sort of similar in comparison to the Emperors, and the people are still feverishly supporting the government just because it's the government.

I don't think a single or an few bad decisions will end an empire. Look at the Roman Empire, if few bad decisions was all it took it would have fallen centuries before it did and the Eastern half didn't completely fall until about thousand years after the western empire fell. It usually takes many facters external and internal to finish off an a empire and such things can take centuries sometimes.

I think it is possible that the United States could suffer the fate of the Roman Republic sooner or later however. Of course then the United States really could be compared to The Roman Empire then like some historians like to do.

This guy has his doubts:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/US-deserves-a-recession-K33G5?OpenDocument&src=sph
Getting what it deserves

When a country elects bad politicians it deserves a recession. It’s the only way to knock some sense into its constituents. That’s the current situation in the US, but unfortunately the whole world will suffer

Let me illustrate this with two sickening examples. One of the deepest causes of division in Congress is that fact that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been big contributors to the Democratic Party, and particularly Barrack Obama who chose their key executives to advise him on mortgages.

A few years ago Republicans in Congress discovered major problems in the structures of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and demanded proper regulation. The Democrats, given their close monetary and other ties with the mortgage insurers, rejected the demands.

The Republicans were absolutely right – strong opposition from the Democrats was a big factor in determining the need to bail out the two mortgage insurers. It has left a very nasty taste in everyone's mouth. John McCain has run television commercials on the subject but his voice on this matter has been washed out by the noise surrounding the bail out.

But one of the most bizarre events that has ever happened in a democratically elected parliament anywhere in the world is taking place right now in the US.

While Congress is debating a make-or-break decision for the US, they find the need to add on a series of crazy pork barrel amendments that have nothing to do with the bailout crisis. In other words, votes are being secured on the basis of support for pet causes that have nothing to do with the bailout.

There are a number of these causes, but Lisa Zagaroli of McClatchy Newspapers describes the silliest – a tax break for NASCAR racetracks and other motor-sports facilities.

She says: “The Senate-passed bill includes an array of so-called 'tax extenders'. One extends for two years a tax policy that had been allowed to expire in December that lets motor sports facilities be treated the same as amusement parks and other entertainment complexes for tax purposes.

"That break allowed them to write off their capital investments over a seven-year period. The motor sports industry feared that without a specific legal clarification, motor sports facilities would be required to depreciate their capital over 15 years or longer because of a recent Internal Revenue Service inquiry into the matter. That would make repaved tracks and new concession stands more expensive in the short term,” Zagaroli writes.

She reveals that the bill to extend the tax treatment has been proposed by two House of Representative members who opposed the bailout in last week’s bill.

It reminds me of the Roman Empire.

A few years ago Republicans in Congress discovered major problems in the structures of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and demanded proper regulation. The Democrats, given their close monetary and other ties with the mortgage insurers, rejected the demands.


I already knew that. Too bad McCain is letting Obama put all the blame on the republicans and give the good ol dems a pass.

And then again, it could just slip into irrelevant mediocrity like the UK.


Looking at the value of the Pound and other factors that maybe a good thing.


Calmdown people, rome isn't dying. The US has gotten out of worse problems and we will get out of this one too, some parts of our economy are still ok. I suspect within 2 years this crisis will be a bad memory.

Also the US dollar is up against the Euro.

Nothing lasts forever. My hope is that we don't utterly fall like Rome or disintegrate like the Soviet Union, but instead sort of retire from being a superpower the way Britain has. Just go from being the most powerful in the world to still powerful and a nice place to live.

Did he end it, or is he a natural result of a natural ending - is he a cause or merely a (very) visible symptom? He certainly didn't cause the situation on Wall Street ...

I think he did, indirectly. Economics is a shell game, always has been. What keeps an economic superpower on top is the perception that it belongs there. Strength is driven by perceived respect, and Bush has killed perceptions of respect of America (not the same thing as respect for America) through his abysmal foreign policy.

When investors can't depend on a nation's core values, they won't invest here. If they think that T-bills are worth less because our arrogant president is squandering the taxpayer's ability to repay them on ego-satisfying wars, they'll buy somewhere safer. That devalues the dollar, weakens trade, and makes our non-governmental economy work harder just to stay in the same place.

It's all interconnected. Bush and Cheney pushed over dominoes all over the board, and now they're amazed that the domino maze is collapsing. People don't think we're a superpower anymore because we don't act like a superpower, and in this case, image = reality.

USA: Will it stay a super power:
No.

Now before you all start angrily bashing the keyboard with your fists, just consider this.
The Roman Empire was an empire longer than the entire history of the United States of America. :headbang:
But i have nothing against the US, and it can't be declined that if the US crashes, then it is going to have some serious effects on the rest of the world.

(EDIT: Okay, so apparently it has been written before, that Rome thing. But whatever.)

As far as the economic system of the United States being discredited, that is a matter I would take issue with. Perhaps the degree to which the system is unregulated, we might make that claim, but the system, overall, is the predominant economic system throughout the world. Who are the competitors? Soviet Communism has been discredited beyond a shadow of a doubt, in liberal countries, the authoritarian-corporatist tendencies of states like Russia and China remain undesirable. Hugo Chavez and whichever Castro is in charge in Cuba can hardly offer an alternative...the Castroite system has offered nothing but a reliance on the goodness of other powers, and the Chavez system is founded on the export of a single, volatile commodity: Oil. As the downturn worsens, commodity exporters are going to be hit harder. Their suffering is magnified by the basic facts of economics. The Chavez system is unsustainable in the current environment.

Will we see greater regulation? Sure, that's part of the cycle of liberalism. Just like boom and bust is the cycle of business. It doesn't surprise, and it doesn't disturb. It's not a revision of the way things work, merely a correction. It's unfortunate, though, that liberal democracies tend to overcorrect in each direction.

As far as the economic system of the United States being discredited, that is a matter I would take issue with. Perhaps the degree to which the system is unregulated, we might make that claim, but the system, overall, is the predominant economic system throughout the world. Who are the competitors? Soviet Communism has been discredited beyond a shadow of a doubt, in liberal countries, the authoritarian-corporatist tendencies of states like Russia and China remain undesirable. Hugo Chavez and whichever Castro is in charge in Cuba can hardly offer an alternative...the Castroite system has offered nothing but a reliance on the goodness of other powers, and the Chavez system is founded on the export of a single, volatile commodity: Oil. As the downturn worsens, commodity exporters are going to be hit harder. Their suffering is magnified by the basic facts of economics. The Chavez system is unsustainable in the current environment.

Will we see greater regulation? Sure, that's part of the cycle of liberalism. Just like boom and bust is the cycle of business. It doesn't surprise, and it doesn't disturb. It's not a revision of the way things work, merely a correction. It's unfortunate, though, that liberal democracies tend to overcorrect in each direction.

So, basically, our (the US') economic system is the worst in the world. Except for all the others. Right? :p

So, basically, our (the US') economic system is the worst in the world. Except for all the others. Right? :p

It's definitely not perfect, it's hardly even good.

But, liberal, mixed-market economies are comparatively efficient and comparatively just in how distribution occurs. At least the system has mechanisms by which it can correct for its failings.

Fundamentally, that's why I'm a liberal--stuff can get fixed when it breaks.

I think that the USA's time as a superpower is fading. I don't know who's gonna be next, but mark my words: A war WILL happen because of it.

As it happens with all great empires. It's a triangle, really. The birth/ascencion of said empire, the achieving of power and staying at the top and then the decline.

This guy has his doubts:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/US-deserves-a-recession-K33G5?OpenDocument&src=sph

Ah. That's really a function of the constitution rather than opportunistic porking the bill per se. (Though I've no doubt they were delighted that they could get their greedy little mitts on more borrowed money when the chance arose).

Spending bills have to originate in the house. So in order for the bailout to pass in the senate before the house had voted yes on it (or no as in this case!) it had to be tacked on to a tax measure the house had already approved and under consideration in the senate: in this case the mental health parity act or something. So all these silly taxes had already been approved by the house and were at that time under consideration in the senate. There isn't anything new - as far as pork goes - in there really. All this would have probably gone through even had there been no bailout. It just looks ridiculous if you don't consider the parliamentary procedures they had to use. (Well, it is actually ridiculous too, but it isn't anything out of the ordinary, which is the point).

It was also apparently important for the senate to act quickly to stabilize the markets (:rolleyes:), so there was a lot of pressure to do this to get something passed. So yeah, it's porked up, but it is less nefarious than it seems to someone who doesn't take into consideration how the bicameral system works here.

It can't be more symbolic...

The Americans try to recover from their bank sh*t, millions of Americans will have to walk through a hard future and....

...at the same time the Chinese are walking in space.

It's game over for USA, in the meantime the ones that still can enjoy a good life, should enjoy it, until it's really over.

Well the eagle's been flying slow and the flag's been flying low
And a lot of people are saying that America's fixing to fall
But speaking just for me and some people from Tennessee
We got a thing or two to tell you all
This lady may have stumbled but she ain't never fell
And if the Russians don't believe that they can all go straight to hell
We're gonna put her feet back on the path of righteousness
And then God bless America again

And you never did think that it ever would happen again
In America, did you?
You never did think that we'd ever get together again
Well we damn sure fooled you
We're walking real proud and we're talking real loud again in America
You never did think that it ever would happen again

From the sound up in Long Island out to San Francisco Bay
And ev'ry thing that's in between them is our home
And we may have done a little bit of fighting amongst ourselves
But you outside people best leave us alone
Cause we'll all stick together and you can take that to the bank
That's the cowboys and the hippies and the rebels and the yanks
You just go and lay your head on a Pittsburgh Steeler fan
And I think you're gonna finally understand

And you never did think that it ever would happen again
In America, did you?
You never did think that we'd ever get together again
Well we damn sure fooled you
We're walking real proud and we're talking real loud again in America
You never did think that it ever would happen again

It can't be more symbolic...

The Americans try to recover from their bank sh*t, millions of Americans will have to walk through a hard future and....

...at the same time the Chinese are walking in space.

It's game over for USA, in the meantime the ones that still can enjoy a good life, should enjoy it, until it's really over.

Well, shit though American banks are, they are absolute choir boys compared to the European ones. Regulatory arbitrage and all that nonsense. Had the US allowed AIG to go tits up, pretty much the Eurozone financial system would have collapsed. And this has nothing to do with american mortgages.

And frankly, some European countries are basically hedge funds. Then there are all structural problems with the Eurozone.

China has its own problems now.

Basically the whole world is circling the drain. War any day now I expect. (Well, after the riots).

From the beeb
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7645743.stm)


Interesting read to say the least. What do you think? Is the USA's current struggles enough to throw it from the top of the hill? Who will take its place if it does?I think it's very telling that the prime proponent of the notion that the US will continue to be the dominant power in the financial world is John Bolton.
In regards to that last question I really liked this response:The answer is quite simple: Europe, East Asia, the Middle East, and the United States. The US isn't likely to be replaced by a single power; we're probably going to see a shift from a US dominated world financial system to a multi-polar system.

The answer is quite simple: Europe, East Asia, the Middle East, and the United States. The US isn't likely to be replaced by a single power; we're probably going to see a shift from a US dominated world financial system to a multi-polar system.

Why? Do you think we are going to go back to the gold standard? I mean, there has to be a reserve currency. Somebody has to take that roll. Chaos otherwise.

I guess the Euro could step in, but only if its members stop being intent on breaking it. (And if the so called merovingian economies pass some epic bailout of the major euro banks).

If the USA goes, it will bring along the world with it.

Bush wants to know what his legacy will be. I think he'll be remembered as the President who ended the era of Americanism. It's not this economic meltdown, it's the arrogance of the so-called Bush Doctrine (essentially a repackage of the PNAC manifesto (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm)).

The economic issue is just a symptom. If Bush really wanted to cement the image into the history books, he'd pull out a fiddle during his next press conference and play it in front of a video of Wall Street burning.

Or he could golf. That's my image of him...
http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/owlive/img/jun04/moore0625_big.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJvRUL81ZU8&feature=related)

That, and My Pet Goat, and him being on Vacation!

It's getting harder and harder for the US to keep playing the super power role.

The dry cleaner lost our cape and we've eaten so many cheeseburgers we can't fit our fat ass into the tights anymore.

What do you mean "Will it Remain a Superpower?"? We've already relinquished that. A more appropriate phrasing would be "Will the USA Ever be A Superpower Again?".

It's getting harder and harder for the US to keep playing the super power role.

The dry cleaner lost our cape and we've eaten so many cheeseburgers we can't fit our fat ass into the tights anymore.That would be funny if America actually had the largest percent of obesity on Earth.

From the beeb
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7645743.stm)


Interesting read to say the least. What do you think? Is the USA's current struggles enough to throw it from the top of the hill? Who will take its place if it does?

In regards to that last question I really liked this response:

the US will maintain its general condition, but the world will become more mulitpolar as india and China take the stand. Russia will take back some of its swagger. aside from ecoomics, I don't see much future or cultural advancement ahead in the EU.

That would be funny if America actually had the largest percent of obesity on Earth.Aww cumon.. It's funny anyway you look at it.

Besides who says we're not #1? (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity)

USA! USA! USA!


:D

The US will maintain its status as the worlds sole super power, but other countries will still emerge, but not to the status of America. China and India are gowing, but soon China will suffer immensly from the oil supply dropping. India won't be hit nearly as hard, but their population will be growing at an unprecedented rate that will make crowding an issue. The EU is slowly growing, but they simply are to divided to make much of a central government. Russia to is growing, but with a declining population of -500,000 per year, they are likly not going to reemerge as a world superpower with such a declining and small population. It will probably reverse and begin increasing once oil skyrockets and the Russians get some cash. But its already done the damage. America on the other hand is still growing in pop., but the economy is declining. Its only temporary, but it will leave a mark and lessen our control. We will probably still come out way ahead of the others though.

Aww cumon.. It's funny anyway you look at it.

Besides who says we're not #1? (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity)

USA! USA! USA!


:D
Finland is sixteenth!

Finland is sixteenth!

What amazes me is that Mexico is number 2 on that list...

No. We all going to die from the impending environmental disaster and the wars caused by increased competition for ever scarcer resources. When we're all dead there will be no superpowers.

What amazes me is that Mexico is number 2 on that list...

You clearly underestimate the power of Mexican cuisine.

No. We all going to die from the impending environmental disaster and the wars caused by increased competition for ever scarcer resources. When we're all dead there will be no superpowers.

Now there's a happy thought. And here I was thinking that maybe, just maybe I could live through this autumn without a crippling depression.

the US will maintain its general condition, but the world will become more mulitpolar as india and China take the stand. Russia will take back some of its swagger. aside from ecoomics, I don't see much future or cultural advancement ahead in the EU.

I see the EU in a better long term position then China and Russia. China and Russia has low birth rates and a net migration of people leaving the country.
This histrically leads to a short term boom in the economy as people have less kids less mouths to feed and can more easily send their one kid to university, followed by a long term recession as the works retire and no one is around to do the lower end jobs that support the college grads.
The EU while also having a low birth rate also has a net immigration.
Still a declining power (US is too so calm down) due to population growth but the immigration cushions it.

the main advantage the US has over the EU is better population growth rates and the immigrants we get are much more closer to our culture. Latin Americans as opposed to North Africans.

Well, yeah, kinda, but it will be a lame one like "super hearing" or "talk to fish."

Not if Obama becomes President of the USA that is for sure.

The liberal leftist pro commie Fidel, Raul loving, sandinista communist loving Sen Christopher Dodd as Secretary of State or Defense just to mention one reason. He probably even likes Chavez.

What do you mean "Will it Remain a Superpower?"? We've already relinquished that. A more appropriate phrasing would be "Will the USA Ever be A Superpower Again?".

Your teachers must be very proud. They can hold this thought while they are mining gold in Alaska.