America Loses Its Dominant Economic Role
spiegel.de
spiegel.de
Pure schadenfreude, most of it. Kind of sad, really, given that Der Spiegel has a reputation for serious content. Most of the criticism of US policy is valid, as far as it goes. And, yes, those policies have produced a ton of bad blood among trading partners.
But this article just drips with glee at the plight of the poor, dumb 'mericans. That's just beneath them. Terrible journalism.
Perhaps that is a warning sign that we should heed? When even our allies are glad to see us brought low, that suggests that perhaps maybe we have not been as well behaved as we should have been.
What are they going to do different?
When something bad happens to them or they get scared, they're going to start screaming for us to help them.
When there's a problem somewhere else, they're still going to insist that we fix it and complain that we didn't do it "right". Interestingly enough, there are very few problems that they can handle on their own and the value of their cooperation is "iffy" at best (see Afghanistan).
When you point out that they're impotent, they always point to their GDP and never point to what they can do.
They'll keep selling us stuff and buying from us.
The only thing that will change is that they'll feel better about insulting tourists. So much for "old world class".
However, that can't take away from the fact that the troops, working men and women from this city, this country and from all over the world doing a professional job and putting their necks on the line in this specious global conflict. To dismiss their contributions as "iffy" does them a grave disservice.
Yes of course. But but in a ratio of closer to 1:1 selling to buying. They won't keep lending you the money to buy stuff.
America's decline won't just be caused by the current financial crisis. You cannot separate this phenomenon from our decreased standing in the world's eyes as a shining beacon on a hill. We were supposed to be a model democracy.
The events in Iraq and Afghanistan, the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib, extraordinary rendition, and Guantanamo Bay have lead to world to look away from us when it comes to morality. We no longer occupy the moral high ground. We no longer serve as a guideline for how to run a democracy. Now, with the financial crisis in full swing, we no longer serve as a guideline for how to manage an economy either.
Granted, we are still a large nation with many wealthy consumers. It will probably take a generation for the full effects of our fall from grace to come to fruition. But, when it comes down to it, we simply cannot maintain our place in the world when the confidence in our country has been shaken so much, both in terms of our government and our economic systems.
Initiating armed conflict: Spanish-American War, various invasions into Mexico, to some degree Vietnam
Wartime screw-ups/atrocities: MyLai (sp?), firebombing of Dresden
Extraordinary rendition: probably the basis of every other spy novel for the past 50 years. Nothing new except for the outrage
We still make things people want -- we have creativity and ideas that the rest of the world desires. Take a look at Hollywood, or the electronic games industry, or the advances in microcircuitry.
We were supposed to be a model democracy, yes. But democracies are made of people, and people do bad or boneheaded stuff. The trick is that we have a system where we make mistakes and then learn from them, not that no mistakes are ever made.
I just wouldn't be too pessimistic. I'm more concerned with the rise of people who think they can use some sort of social engineering to make the world perfect than the foibles of our current reality.
And I bet if you really looked at it, total GDP probably really took off during the industrial revolution, some 50 years before that.
To refute his claims using scientific evidence, turn to page 29.
To refute his claims using theological or philosophical arguments, turn to page 73.
To reply, "You would have to be a creationist," offering no further rejoinder, turn to page 14.
Page 14: Someone mocks your answer by comparing it to political arguments.
Actually regarding Creationism, I think the world was created in 7 days, except each day took two alternate lengths.
1: if you were standing in it then millions of years, and
2: if you were standing out of it from God's perspective, exactly 24 hours. The days may in fact run simultaneously. From God's perspective, it's a bit like running 7 DVDs players in fast forward from your couch so that each one only runs for 24 hours of viewing time, but as an actor within the film it could be a few million years story time depending on how fast it was fast-forwarded from the couch and how the scenes progressed in the storyline.
My point: Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive when one's frame-of-reference for viewing the universe's startup events can switch between alternate yet equally valid perspectives.
So what? Most first world countries earn about similar amounts per capita as the US.
> The American markets dictate what overseas markets due on a daily basis
To some extent this is an interpretation. The story that people (such news reporters) tell to explain the day's trading. However it is a fair interpretation at the moment.
Dominating the world economy with only 20% of the worlds output is surely an impressive feat. But doesn't that make it even easier to see why it may not continue? If that 20% has a serious malfunction and has been relying on credit from the other 80% then don't you think portions of the other 80% are going to start asserting more independence?
If you think that the US will be able to continue to dictate economic terms to the world you are in for a rude awakening.
The US may continue it's first place in % of world GDP for a long time (depending on how we define the EU), but that's not going to mean what it used to. First with 15% when second third & fourth come in at 14, 13 & 12 doesn't have the same sort of affect on the world.
In 2006 the surprise free (exact continuation of existing trends) prediction for the economic superpower map was China surpassing the States by 2040 with India not far behind & several countries at around 50% of the US's GDP. The China-US equivalent was then moved to 2025 in 2007 (when the dollar went on the move).
Now, a year down the line we hit another bump (so much for no surprises). China's political dependence on economic growth & preference for good news, might mean it's a while before anyone knows how China is affected. They could come out more affected then the US. But that said, it seems possible that the US will indeed be only one of several big players very soon. China doesn't seem too interested in exerting political influence beyond their immediate interests currently. Russia does but is not likely to wield enough power soon. The EU is not a great mechanism for converting economic power to military & political power. So the US will probably have a little more pull then their % of GDP should entitle them to, for a while. But USA 2020 is not the same kind of a power as US 1990. Potentially similar to Russia 1970 vs 2000.
The reality about things like 'The War on Terror' is that opinions of it among academics, analysts, intelligent politicians (who by definition do not disclose their true feelings on the subject) and importantly security/military experts are that it is a threat on par with organised crime, HIV, traffic accidents or whatever other troubles they might have. Only a small handful of countries are seriously threatened by 'terrorists' either in terms of affecting the lives of citizens (eg Israel) or politically (eg Lebanon). And that is a far less serious threat then your average border conflict between nations (which is likely result in loss of sovereignty or territory) or internal conflicts.
The thing is, that makes sense. Britain copped a bombing. I don't want to belittle that but if not for the political ramifications, that's no worse then what a month of bad weather can do to traffic accidents. Certainly affects people's lives a lot less then things like healthcare, policing or education. It's not a danger of the 'Napoleon is coming' kind nor is signing up to the a war effort controversially effective in stopping it.
If that's the opinion of most while the US president is still talking terrorists, the US comes off as irrelevant. Almost like talking about making a choice between Socialism & Barbarism.
The US is more susceptible to terrorism largely because of its rhetoric. They could for example, get drawn into or prolong a war. But that's not the same kind of threat that even dwarfs like N. Korea or Iran present. Terrorism fast hits a brick wall. If attacks become common in The States (eg 5 per year) long term, they will get used to it. Just like gang violence. You could theoretically just ignore it & the US would still be the US. The same could not ba said of the Cold War War II, or any other 'real' war.
The outcomes I mention are extremely serious. Outcomes that are easily existentially important to the state.
Hey Spiegel, why don't you come back when Germany's GDP hits double-digit trillions.
European Union: $16.62 trillion (2007 est.)
United States: $13.84 trillion (2007 est.)
Europe may have a centralized bank–but they _don't_ have a centralized government.
So, if/when they have a huge financial crisis, what government will intervene?
European Union: 500,000,000 people
United States: 304,000,000 people
People in France and Germany produce 30-40% more GDP per hour of work than people in the US do.
"American workers stay longer in the office, at the factory, or on the farm than their counterparts in Europe and most other rich nations, and they produce more per person over the year.
They also get more done per hour than everyone but the Norwegians, according to a UN report that said the United States "leads the world in labor productivity." The report was released in Geneva today, which is Labor Day in the United States.
The average US worker produces $63,885 of wealth per year, more than their counterparts in all other countries, the International Labor Organization said in its report. Ireland comes in second at $55,986, followed by Luxembourg at $55,641, Belgium at $55,235, and France at $54,609.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/09/03/...
My guess is that the Norwegians are doing so well because they are a tiny country with a massive amount of oil exports.
These figures are all the more surprising since, when one works fewer hours, the rate of productivity should be higher, not lower, as the low-hanging fruit get picked first (law of marginal utility). Moreover, the trend is that the US productivity rate is increasing faster than that of Europe. At current trends, it won't be many years from now when the EU has a per capita GDP less than half that of the US.
<rant> One of our problems is that we are working long hours to pay for the defense of the rest of the free world while Europe goes on vacation. When you get up and go to work in the morning, think a fond thought for our European "allies" who are taking the day off.
We need to get out of NATO now. Let the Russians shut off the gas to them (again), or the Arabs and Iranians shut off their oil, or the "youths" of indeterminate cultural background burn a few thousand more cars. The Europeans (it wasn't just the Germans and Italians) have killed about 400,000 of our young men. That's enough, I think. </rant>
The nominal GDP per hour worked numbers from OECD confirm my statement.
And if you're paying for the defense of the "rest of the free world", it's being "paid" with debt financed by Asia and the Middle East.
More here: http://medienkritik.typepad.com/
The next great economic triumph won't be the victory of any particular country or region. It will be the emergence of distributed and decentralized economic power.
That's how I'd like to see it go down, anyhow..
When it's true, it won't make such a long news story because it will be obvious and uninteresting.
The length of the news stories shows that it is still early. So far, the only one who says America is about to collapse is the crazy president of Iran.
I had a feeling that this article would be off-key.
"Financial Crisis: So much for tirades against American greed"
"It took a weekend to shatter the complacency of German finance minister Peer Steinbrück. Last Thursday he told us that the financial crisis was an "American problem", the fruit of Anglo-Saxon greed and inept regulation that would cost the United States its "superpower status"...By Monday, Mr Steinbrück was having to orchestrate Germany's biggest bank bail-out, putting together a €35 billion loan package to save Hypo Real Estate."
That's odd, I had assumed that the list of names at the end of the article were the authors...
Beat Balzli, Klaus Brinkbaumer, Frank Hornig, Hans Hoyng, Armin Mahler, Alexander Neubacher, Wolfgang Reuter, Christoph Pauly, Michael Sauga
They did well as long as the US had a continuous growth, but there are now many 'New Americas' out there, which will make there own new way of life.
America: sorry, but you're getting old already...