US superpower status is shaken

[neonlyte]

Interesting viewpoints: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7645743.stm

<... 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.

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." ...>

Good idea to read the opposing opinion before commenting on the above

 

[Saucy_Sage]

I hadn't realized that after eight years of the present idiot in the WH, anyone still saw us a a superpower. I remember George Bush promising in 2000 that his would not be a foreign policy based on arrogance. In a sense, he was correct. The arrogant attitude is even stronger than before, but all the reasons for it have vanished. We are no longer a moral force, having engaged in torture, our military has been bogged down in the Middle East for longer than WW I or II, and the unwillingness of other countries to cooperate in the Treasury's proposed bailout plan suggests that our economic leadership is under serous question as well. On the other hand, we have found snow falling on Mars. We still lead the world in weathermen!

 

[rgraham666]

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 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."

Now that is just fucking hilarious! http://bestsmileys.com/lol/1.gif

PNAC was founded specifically to push a uni-polar world. With the U.S. as the uni-pole. It intended to destroy the United Nations and any hint of multi-lateral actions. It was all going to be "coalitions of the willing." Even if that will was at gunpoint.

They wanted the 19th Century back, thinking that with international anarchy there would be no one to stand against the U.S.

And now they're whining about it. Warning about the dangers of international anarchy.

Fucking hilarious.

 

[neonlyte]

Now that is just fucking hilarious! http://bestsmileys.com/lol/1.gif

PNAC was founded specifically to push a uni-polar world. With the U.S. as the uni-pole. It intended to destroy the United Nations and any hint of multi-lateral actions. It was all going to be "coalitions of the willing." Even if that will was at gunpoint.

They wanted the 19th Century back, thinking that with international anarchy there would be no one to stand against the U.S.

And now they're whining about it. Warning about the dangers of international anarchy.

Fucking hilarious.

It is truly wonderful, Rob.

Have to admire the BBC for drawing these thoughts together, the divergence between three academics is worth the read.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Net result of all three opinions = "We have no fucking idea!"

 

[neonlyte]

Net result of all three opinions = "We have no fucking idea!"

Too right, they are all hindsight views with little to no idea of 'what happens next'.

 

[CharleyH]

Interesting viewpoints: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7645743.stm

<... The financial crisis is likely to diminish the status of the United States as the world's only superpower.

No offence, but the US hasn't been a superpower in my eyes since 9/11.

 

[Saucy_Sage]

No offence, but the US hasn't been a superpower in my eyes since 9/11.

Because a country that suffers a terrorist attack can't possibly be a superpower? Sort of like if Superman could be hurt he wouldn't really be super? This seems to be an awfully extreme definition of "superpower." Under that definition, we haven't been a superpower since Pearl Harbor.

I think the U.S. acted with considerable influence and moral force in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when it led an enormous coalition to invade Afghanistan. In my view, it began to forfeit its right to superpower status when it began to discuss invading Iraq, ignoring, for all real intents and purposes, the United Nations, and misleading the American public about the country's pre-9/11 (and pre-war) connection with terrorism.

 

[CharleyH]

Because a country that suffers a terrorist attack can't possibly be a superpower? Sort of like if Superman could be hurt he wouldn't really be super? This seems to be an awfully extreme definition of "superpower." Under that definition, we haven't been a superpower since Pearl Harbor.

I think the U.S. acted with considerable influence and moral force in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when it led an enormous coalition to invade Afghanistan. In my view, it began to forfeit its right to superpower status when it began to discuss invading Iraq, ignoring, for all real intents and purposes, the United Nations, and misleading the American public about the country's pre-9/11 (and pre-war) connection with terrorism.

Look, I don't give a fuck what you think of my opinion. Bitch all you want about it. Suffering a terrorist attack doesn't stop anyone from being a superpower. Panicking like a little boy hiding behind his sister's skirt and retaliating at random does.

 

[Saucy_Sage]

Look, I don't give a fuck what you think of my opinion. Bitch all you want about it. Suffering a terrorist attack doesn't stop anyone from being a superpower. Panicking like a little boy hiding behind his sister's skirt and retaliating at random does.

I love you, too.

I think we're actually in fairly close agreement on this one. Apart from that whole "retaliating at random" thing. What the U.S. did was actually worse. Our government lied about the involvement of Iraq, not to "retaliate" against them, but just to attack them.

 

[jomar]

Look, I don't give a fuck what you think of my opinion. Bitch all you want about it. Suffering a terrorist attack doesn't stop anyone from being a superpower. Panicking like a little boy hiding behind his sister's skirt and retaliating at random does.

And wanting Daddy's approval.

(I'm assuming you're talking about Bush and his administration)

 

[neonlyte]

And wanting Daddy's approval.

(I'm assuming you're talking about Bush and his administration)

Nah.. they wanted the UK's approval. Despite the UK's diminishing might as a military force, it carried a huge diplomatic presence. We hung our hat on the wrong peg, linked ourselves too closely with the USA and shunned our European partners. We are paying for that mistake heavily with our own loss of influence in European affairs. Mainland Europe is moving forward dragging the UK on its coat-tails. Anyone who travels in Europe will tell you the same.

I'm largely with CharleyH, viz 9/11. USA reaction was stunned disbelief (rightly so). Once the metaphorical dust settled, the USA (and the UK) lost its way. A discredited election (Bush 1) undermined democratic values and lashing out at Muslim's encouraged a handful of renegades to continue a battle they should never have been allowed to start. Intelligence was so poor (because the USA fell into the trap of assuming Israel controlled the Muslims) that it was easier to attack a nation than pick off individuals. Add imprisoning without trial and moral authority vaporises. Wall Street undermines the American way.

 

[jomar]

Nah.. they wanted the UK's approval. Despite the UK's diminishing might as a military force, it carried a huge diplomatic presence. We hung our hat on the wrong peg, linked ourselves too closely with the USA and shunned our European partners. We are paying for that mistake heavily with our own loss of influence in European affairs. Mainland Europe is moving forward dragging the UK on its coat-tails. Anyone who travels in Europe will tell you the same.

I'm largely with CharleyH, viz 9/11. USA reaction was stunned disbelief (rightly so). Once the metaphorical dust settled, the USA (and the UK) lost its way. A discredited election (Bush 1) undermined democratic values and lashing out at Muslim's encouraged a handful of renegades to continue a battle they should never have been allowed to start. Intelligence was so poor (because the USA fell into the trap of assuming Israel controlled the Muslims) that it was easier to attack a nation than pick off individuals. Add imprisoning without trial and moral authority vaporises. Wall Street undermines the American way.

I meant W wanting Daddy's (Bush Sr's) approval. A little pat on the back for finishing Saddam off.

The intelligence was mostly there regarding Iraq from what I've read and heard, but Bush and Cheney cherry picked it and snookered the US and allies. Unfortunately, the smoke and mirrors will assure they'll never pay, except to down in history as a shitty president, the one who led the administration that fucked the US up on a global scale in so many ways.

And I thought you misspelled 'greed' in your OP.

 

[neonlyte]

I meant W wanting Daddy's (Bush Sr's) approval. A little pat on the back for finishing Saddam off.

The intelligence was mostly there regarding Iraq from what I've read and heard, but Bush and Cheney cherry picked it and snookered the US and allies. Unfortunately, the smoke and mirrors will assure they'll never pay, except to down in history as a shitty president, the one who led the administration that fucked the US up on a global scale in so many ways.

And I thought you misspelled 'greed' in your OP.

Yes, I got the Sr reference, just don't think he really figured.

Creed in the OP is John Gray's from news report, I don't know all those words

 

[xssve]

"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".

A "free" market does not mean an unregulated one, a common misconception that lies at the root of all of this - that unregulated markets will regulate themselves is Randian fantasy that morons like amicus promote - Smith was a realist, and as such one of his primary concerns was the propensity of human being to take advantage of the situation - the people on the cutting edge of regulatory theory today are games theorists, but nobody listens to them because they think that free market means - guess what? Unregulated markets.

In short, all business tends toward monopoly - market forces essentially dictate that an unregulated market will not remain a free market for long.

Regulation should keep firms from gaining an unfair advantage, putting other firms at a disadvantage and erecting barriers to entry.

We discussed this in the other thread w/regard to the housing debacle - Rox claimed that conformance to the CRA is what distorted the market, i.e., "loans to black people", not suprisingly, this is the meme conservatives are spreading.

With H.R. 2622, the republicans essentially deregulated the loan industry by overriding state regulations so that loans could essentially be made based on your credit number alone.

This had the effect of throwing gasoline on the fire, and everybody scrambled to make as many loans as they could as fast as they could or get left behind which lent the whole thing an air of legitimacy, "everybody is doing it".

As I mentioned, CRA conforming loans actually have lower default rates than the non-conforming market, and these are expected to be high risk loans - the reason? There are regulations governing who is eligible for a CRA loan, and criteria that have to be satisfied, income, etc., by law - i.e., CRA loans are still regulated, whereas all regulations, state and federal, for the remainder of the market were essentially suspended for all practical purposes.

This is how an unregulated market works: the real trick becomes timing the bubble, and it will essentially go from one bubble to the next, with market power becoming increasing consolidated into fewer and fewer hands, people who subsequently gain an increased ability to leverage the market in whatever direction they want.

A free market requires an effort to create as level a playing field as possible and preserve competition in the market place, this is the essence of the invisible hand, it doesn't work if there isn't competition.

"Free" means free to compete, not free from regulation, and the essence of good regulation is preserve fair competition.

Easier said than done, obviously: it isn't exiting or sexy, it's just drudge and it doesn't make you popular or well liked.

Used to be, everyone understood this, but times have changed, and undermining this whole understanding, replacing it with the populist appeal of the no-taxes/no-regulation fantasy has been a central element in the neo-con movement since Reagan.

I'm sorry, I've seen this coming for a while, and even more important, I don't imagine this will be the end of it - conservatives will swallow the CRA agitprop because most of them don't get their information from anywhere but party organs. You better start thinking about cutting ties, cause once they've squeezed the last drop of value out of this economy they'll be looking at you with those eyes - they have repeatedly failed to demonstrate that they know any other way of doing business, see Argentina, etc.

 

[rgraham666]

Because a country that suffers a terrorist attack can't possibly be a superpower? Sort of like if Superman could be hurt he wouldn't really be super? This seems to be an awfully extreme definition of "superpower." Under that definition, we haven't been a superpower since Pearl Harbor.

I think the U.S. acted with considerable influence and moral force in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when it led an enormous coalition to invade Afghanistan. In my view, it began to forfeit its right to superpower status when it began to discuss invading Iraq, ignoring, for all real intents and purposes, the United Nations, and misleading the American public about the country's pre-9/11 (and pre-war) connection with terrorism.

Well, from what I know of the history of PNAC, they had intended to invade Iraq a decade before they actually did.

As I've said so many times before, the invasion of Iraq was a message to the world. "We're in charge. We go where we want, when we want and do what we want. This is what happens to people that get in our way."

9/11 was just a convenient excuse. And it put the home front in a manipulable state of fear. Which the current administration did as quickly as they could.

 

[jomar]

Yes, I got the Sr reference, just don't think he really figured.

Creed in the OP is John Gray's from news report, I don't know all those words

I don't really think Sr did either. I should have put a after the sentence.

 

[neonlyte]

< snip>
Used to be, everyone understood this, but times have changed, and undermining this whole understanding, replacing it with the populist appeal of the no-taxes/no-regulation fantasy has been a central element in the neo-con movement since Reagan.

I'm sorry, I've seen this coming for a while, and even more important, I don't imagine this will be the end of it - conservatives will swallow the CRA agitprop because most of them don't get their information from anywhere but party organs. You better start thinking about cutting ties, cause once they've squeezed the last drop of value out of this economy they'll be looking at you with those eyes - they have repeatedly failed to demonstrate that they know any other way of doing business, see Argentina, etc.

Nice post, xxsve
I think you really nail it with the bit above. Short memories, repeated mistakes. The UK property bubble at the end of the 80's, just 20 years ago, is like it never happened, took 8 years to recover from that one. Remember 15% interest rates? We managed since to lull ourselves into a false sense of wellbeing, built on a deck of credit cards. C'est la vie, with any luck the next one will be after my time.

 

[rgraham666]

As my favorite author points out using the metaphor 'level playing field' for an unregulated economic environment is rather silly.

Any playing field is going to be heavily regulated. Size of field, equipment, uniforms, scoring, team sizes, penalties, constant monitoring by referees.

It's what makes a game or sport playable and fun.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

We have bigger problems than paying the Las Vegas debts of banks.

I just read a business article about health insurance costs rising 3 times faster than income, and companies are passing much of the increased premiums on to employees....that is, employers are decreasing the percentage they pay. So people are dropping their health insurance at work, which increases the premiums more (because the pool is smaller).

Sales of new vehicles are down about 33% from 2007. States depend on sales taxes.

Home values declined 16% nationwide (33% in Florida). States depend on property taxes.

People arent buying new homes, so cities are defaulting on the bonds they issued to pay for new sewer & water plants.

 

[shereads]

This is good news, Neon. I'm tired of the whole superpower thing. Let someone else have a turn.

 

[starrkers]

We have bigger problems than paying the Las Vegas debts of banks.

I just read a business article about health insurance costs rising 3 times faster than income, and companies are passing much of the increased premiums on to employees....that is, employers are decreasing the percentage they pay. So people are dropping their health insurance at work, which increases the premiums more (because the pool is smaller).

Sales of new vehicles are down about 33% from 2007. States depend on sales taxes.

Home values declined 16% nationwide (33% in Florida). States depend on property taxes.

People arent buying new homes, so cities are defaulting on the bonds they issued to pay for new sewer & water plants.

Seems to me, from my extremely limited understanding of all this, that the US has currently built itself on a huge juggling act. Everything is done on credit and it all stays afloat by shuffling the creditors.

Kind of like the household budget that is paid by a credit card. Then another credit card is needed to cover the repayments on the first, and another to pay that one, ad infinitum.

It's all good until an application for further credit is refused and some real actual payment is required.

I know that's incredibly simplistic. But is it in any way accurate, or should I just shut up and crawl back into my eucalypt studded hole?

 

[colddiesel]

Perhaps the whole idea of Superpower is past its use by date. It may be a little early to make the call but in an internetted world, a globalised economy I think even the nation state as an institutional force is losing its purpose.

The most interesting thing about the current financial crisis to me is the degree of action undertaken by central bankers without reference to their national political institutions. Then when reference to those political institutions became necessary the reference points changed from international necessity to parochial pork barrelling.

You cannot help but observe how the average politician wherever he or she is is disconnected from the world of their constituents.

Neo appears to have great faith in the EU. I do not and believe it will fall over within 15 years. It is a 1950's concept which has no relevance in 2008. And the Eu is just an obvious example of institutional redundancy.

 

[rgraham666]

If the EU, a 1950's concept, has no relevance in 2008, could you explain why the U.S., a 1780's concept is relevant?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

What happened to us was George W. Bush, pure and simple. When he came to power we had a government surplus, a strong economy and world peace. He mishandled everything, from his own election on out. Through tax cuts and deficit spending, deregulation and a useless war he fucked up the economy and squandered the military. Through torture and treaty abrogation he destroyed our moral authority and griounds for respect, and military adventurism and the Bush doctrine made us a rogue nation and the very sort of thing he'd warned about.

It was hubris, ignorance, and pride that did it.

But don't count the US out yet. Not till Nov 4th.