The Decline and Fall of the America Empire: Part One 1945-2011

Karen

Your argument seems to be that there isn’t a decline. That it is just that the world is changing and the US will adapt and carry on in its hegemony.

You base that view on the fact that the US has gone through bad patches before. (Athough both examples you give were before the US had grown into its empire and its hegemony)


Thing is that I think the US could ‘fix things’ so as to improve its situation but I think the things it needs to do would have a detrimental effect on US global power and influence.

However the fixes would also reduce the power and influence of wealth within the US political system and so will be resisted by that group and if they succeed that will have a detrimental effect on US global power and influence.

I think option one is preferable but either way there is trouble ahead.

 

My parents didn't even remember the Great Depression, other than some superficial details from childhood.

I once took an economics class that covered a large number of business cycles, including many from other countries. It puts things in a much better perspective when you have that much data to look at. The most extreme examples come from countries that have incompetent people running their monetary systems, some having gotten their jobs through a military coup instead of studying economics at the university level.

The most amusing stories were about hyperinflation. Can you imagine bringing a wheelbarrow load of cash to buy a single bag of groceries? That has happened in at least three countries that I know of.

Things won't be exactly the same. Look at the recent Libya situation as an example. The US took the lead role, but France and the UK were pressured into doing more than they ordinarily do in a NATO event. I think this is the pattern for the future, and I think it is a good thing.

I still haven't heard you name a country that is prepared to step into the lead role.

As for China, two things to watch for: Their labor costs have nowhere to go but up, and world interest rates have nowhere to go but up. Higher interest rates make it more expensive to have a long supply chain, favoring domestic production. These two issues will eventually end China's double-digit growth. And then they will have problems with their banks, for reasons I will get to in a moment.

Nearly all economic downturns start out the same way; the economy gets overheated, people borrow and spend too much, business borrow and expand too much, and banks lend too much to too many people. Then the boom runs out of momentum. Everyone panics. Businesses fail and/or lay off workers. People stop spending on nonessentials. Banks used to fail too, and depositors lost all their savings.

(Second largest historical cause of economic depressions: natural disasters)

Once a downturn has a momentum of its own, it's hard to break out. In the long depression of the 1870s and 1880s, nothing was happening to change anything. In fact, government spending was cut back, making everything worse. The economy had to climb out of the hole on its own, and it took a very long time.

This depression was studied to death, and one of the results was the birth of Keynesian Economics. John Maynard Keynes taught that a depression could be made shorter by government borrowing and spending. FDR tried this in 1933, which improved the situation considerably, but he waffled in 1935. This stalled the recovery, and as a result, the Great Depression lasted until the outbreak of WWII.

After the war, economists pushed for strict regulation of US banks, preventing them from over-lending in a boom, and for federal insurance for depositors. This approach worked until Reagan went over the edge into excessive deregulation. Clinton allowed this trend to continue, setting the stage for disaster.

We also had good success preventing recessions from turning into depressions by textbook applications of Keynesian Economics, from WWII until just a few years ago. It isn't working out this time because the government failed to pay down the federal debt during good times (G.W. Bush), which has put them in a poor position to borrow and spend now. All we have left is Federal Reserve control of interest rates, which is not a powerful enough tool to fix the problem alone.

This sets up a situation similar to the one in the 1870s, except that we now have a global economy. Our problems are having a world-wide impact this time.

 

Karen

But there does not need to be “a country that is prepared to step into the lead role” and the argument that the US is in decline does not need one.

*

I agree with you about the problems with neo-liberal ideas and the superiority of a Keynesian approach but again that doesn’t counter the argument that the US is in decline.

 

So, you're not saying that our #1 position is in danger? To me, changes that don't lead to a change in position are not of any great importance. It's like saying a sports team is in decline because they used to beat all their opponents by 20 points, but now they only average winning by 10. So what? They are still winning.

When economists first started writing about the concept of a true global economy (such as Milton Friedman), they pointed out that it would lead to greater parity among nations. We have seen that happen, and I don't think many people are debating it anymore.

And of course, money is the source of all other kinds of power.

A global recession puts most if not all developed nations into decline, but there is no guarantee that rankings will change in the top five.

 

Karen--thank you.

 

A major turning point for the US was the day that Monica Lewinsky gave Bill Clinton a blow job. If she had been able to find enough emotional maturity within herself to keep quiet about it, then the right wing religious voters probably wouldn't have rejected the Democratic Party in the next election, and George W. Bush would not have had the opportunity to damage this country in so many profound ways. She has consistently said that it was a consensual sex act, so there was nothing that needed to be said about it publicly.

Most of us knew on some level that Bill Clinton liked to have a good time, but we seemed to pretty much overlook it until we were confronted with fresh details, partly because he seemed to be doing a great job. And then he was cornered and felt pressured to lie, in a desperate attempt to avoid the inevitable reaction. That's when the wheels came off.

Unfortunately, many Americans have limited ability to separate someone's job performance from his or her personal life. I wish we could learn this lesson from the Europeans. We tend to define character as the ability to conform to someone else's list of social and personal rules. That is obedience, not character.

I'm not saying that it isn't possible to get beyond the Bush years and get back on track to a certain extent, but our image in the world and our national financial situation will not fully recover for at least a generation. And all the time, effort, and money spent undoing the damage could have been spent on better things.

 

Karen

I’m not sure how your define ‘decline’?

You seem to be saying that as long as a state is ‘winning’ it cannot be in decline,
I mean you can have decline but still weld a lot of power, Britain even while in decline from 1918 still welded a lot of power and influence. The Roman Empire in one form or another was a great power right up to the 11th century AD but it wasn’t the Empire of the first century AD.

Someone could say “so what” but that doesn’t counter the argument that decline is taking place.

*

I’m not sure how you define ‘winning’ in a political, economic or diplomatic way?

Who wins, who losses?

I mean in what way has the US won since 1945, and seeing that real wages have dropped or stagnated in the last 30 years or so (for most people) and because of the financial crisis are probably mostly going to see a fall in their quality of life, in what way have most Americans ‘won’?

*

What do you mean by a “true global economy”?

And again I think Keynes had the right ideas. At Bretton Wood he proposed a system to bring about global economic benefits to all rather that the neo-liberals rather Social Darwinists based ideas of a fake survival of the fittest.
Keynes is innocent: the toxic spawn of Bretton Woods was no plan of his

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/18/lord-keynes-international-monetary-fund

 

Karen

I think that is another sign of the times – the media didn’t go after FDR’s polio – they didn’t reveal JFK’s promiscuity or drug taking, and they didn’t reveal Nixon’s chronic paranoia and heavy drinking.

Now although many believe Clinton could have got a third term he wasn’t allowed by the 22 amendment brought in after FDR got four terms (although he died before the end of his fourth).

And in my view Al Gore won anyway but…..

Did you not read Primary Colours?
http://www.amazon.com/Primary-Colors-Novel-Politics/dp/0446604275"]Amazon.com: Primary Colors: A Novel of Politics (9780446604277): Anonymous, Joe Klein: Books

Oh Karen we have the same thing in the UK and in several other European countries, even in France were the media basically ignores the personnel life of those in power still has it.

You might be interested in
That Used to Be Us by Thomas L Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum – review

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/sep/17/friedman-mandelbaum-that-used-review

It points out the reasons for decline and the problems associated with them but they are upbeat about solutions and the ability of the US to implement them.

Many reviewers have praised the analysis of the first part but seem rather sceptical about the second.

As am I, what argument have you got that you think would persuade me otherwise?

 

I quite like the theory that the USA is actually the end result of the European age of empire rather than an empire in itself. This is borne out by the fact that it's unquestionable supremacy began in 1945 with the European empires imploding, and more obviously the fact that the dominant class are European settlers....

I have never really read or thought it out properly, I know Frantz Fanon wrote some similar ideas, I just like it because it is a good way to wind up Americans

 

No, I'm just not sure how much it matters.

Probably one of the truest measures of any country is to watch the borders. How many people want to get in or out, and how badly do they want to do it? Talk is cheap and statistics lie, but people vote with their feet. People say they would rather live in Canada, but they don't actually do it.

The one that we have now, where economic problems spread quickly thorughout the world, and manufacturing production is quickly and easily relocated to the site of lowest production cost.

Clinton should have been aware of this. I love him, but he had no excuse for not knowing about media trends. He isn't stupid. His actions were stupid.

Don't remind me! :bigcry:

Better yet, I've met Gennifer Flowers in person! I saw her perform at a small club in New Orleans many years ago, and talked to her afterwards.

I know all the dirt on Bill.

Paris goes too far, ignoring even criminal mischief. The rest of France is quite different from Paris.

It's the old rural vs. urban thing. I can't think of anywhere that doesn't hold true, except maybe Vermont and New Hampshire, where they don't have urban areas. Both states are liberal.

It's all predictions about the future. Anyone can be right or wrong. We will all find out at the same time what the outcome will be.

I don't see the purpose of a totally negative book about the future. There are always things that can be done to make the future better than the worst-case scenario. Total failure requires no thought or action. Why read a hopeless book? You may as well go fishing, or watch porn.

I can't think of any reason to disagree with you.

 

As I’ve said the decline of US power could be a good thing for Americans and the rest of the world if that decline is handled properly.

But for that to happen, I think first the decline needs to be recognised, then the reasons for the decline need to be understood and finally strategies for dealing with those problems need to be put in place for the decline to be a good thing for Americans and the rest of the world.

I hope for that because so easily a decline in US power could be a very bad thing for Americans and the rest of the world.

Winston Churchill once said - "America will always do the right thing, but only after exhausting all other options."

Well I’m not so sure it has that luxury this time.

 

Being born in Dallas Texas,1950, I have seen a lot of trends come and go and come back again. The 50's were pretty rough as far as jobs and wages. As I reflect back I see us struggling to make ends meet. Relocation to SoCali was our jumpstart into upper middle class.

By 1961, it was the Land Of Milk And Honey. The Kennedy's were in power and in my opinion, they had enough money/influence/power that they did not have to adhear to the demands of the powers that rule the world ie: the Banks/Bank Funders. and were exterminated bc they refused to comply.

I'm not a political person and dont claim to know what goes on behind closed doors in the whitehouse but I did live in thoes times and can clearly see the decline after the death of the Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King.

All the unity went out the window and it became a place of greed and ill intent upon the citizens of the United States.

By 63' ppl were in the streets protesting the viet nam war, screaming for equaility for all human beings and the birth of The Hippie Movement occured.

The Hate was full on and the Love was dwindling. Ppl were slaves to the g'ment again, turning over their hard earned money and finding it more difficult to make ends meet.

The 70's rolled in and the g'ment was at war with their own citizens, beating us with sticks, gassing us and whatever else they could throw at us. Us, as in the ones that stood up against them.

After that it just became a joke as far as us having any rights or say so as to how we wanted OUR country's leardes to behave.

If we dont make a change in g'ment rule we will stay sheep being led to slaughter. Not just the USA but all countries will bend to ONE World Order.

That will be the demise of the Human Being.

sh

 

Did John Kennedy not nearly destroy the entire world because one of the Caribbean islands didn't do exactly what they were told by America?

 

Wow, what a biased comment! The Soviet Union stationed warhead missiles in Cuba within easy reach of the US mainland. Kennedy demanded they be removed and he didn't back down. And you are saying this wasn't justified? What's the matter with you?

 

America forced Cuba to go to the Soviet Union though

They had no choice, Castro overthrew Batista because he was running the country as a mafia state and the US responded by attacking the island militarily and economically. Being a Soviet satellite wasn't Castro's first choice he wanted a non-aligned socialist republic, but because the US wouldn't recognise his desire for Cuba to not be a US satellite

Totally aside from the domestic situation in the US, America's 'allies' often suffer a great deal from the relationship. Kennedy may have been forward thinking and a great president, but he was still deep into the US establishment, including the gangster and murder part of it and he would never betray that (or maybe that was why they shot him because he would have done....)

 

It might have been a justified action to handle the crisis the way he did (although he was very lucky that Kruschev was in power since he was perhaps the most intelligent leader the USSR ever had and Stalin would not have been so open) but he also created the situation by treating Cuba terribly prior to the missile crisis

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- What was he to do ? Allow I.c.b.m. 90 miles off the coast of main land United States ? Come on, get real , he did the right thing . It was Russia , who put the world in danger . I give the man credit , for having the balls to call their bluff ! How many of these chump leaders today would have the same intestinal fortitude ? Do you realize what a strategic blunder that would have been , if they went unchallenged ? Do you realize what their first strike capabilities and edge would have been militarily ? My God they could have wiped us out , before we launched one missile .

They wanted to see how far they could push , how good our intelligence was . J.F.K. did a wonderful job !

 

Not sure how golden a rule that is considering the varying degrees of difficulty in the immigration process from one nation to another. I mean maybe we get the bulk of the immigrants because they simply know America is their best chance, the easy lay of Immigrational intercourse so to speak? We certainly dont seem to turn many away, even those who sneak in under the fence are "kept around" for the sake of cheap labor without as much as a look of scorn by the bulk of our elected officials.

I mean would you head for the landscape with an old broken down barbed wire fence or the one with searchlights and guard towers along it's edge? Just using raw numbers of those seeking to enter is sort of cooking things a bit dontcha think?

And if you talk to immigrants these days, Cab drivers, restaurant workers, factory workers, it becomes quite clear in many cases that they didn't really have a realistic idea of what life in America is like in the first place and often feel sort of lied to and resentful over the whole thing.

And why are they immigrating should be another thing considered, are they looking to become permanent, lifelong residents of their new homeland, or are they merely looking to get in, make a fast buck (well, faster than could be made back on Ma's Farm at least) and siphon that earned income away from their host nation and back to the homeland? I mean, if Nation A. makes it so hard to earn a living through taxation and the thought of illegal gains so terrifying thanks to harsh, cruel & unusual punishments and you know you have an 80% chance of getting away with some bad stuff in Nation B with the worst that will happen to you being a slap on the wrist or "God forbid" getting sent back to your native country and told sternly not to come back,,,

But it is true, statistics do lie, or can at least be very deceiving when all factors aren't looked at for what they're worth.

 

Papa Wolf

Try reading -

Red Heat by Alex Von Tunzelmann, it is a study of superpower involvement in the Caribbean during the cold war. You might be surprised at just how inept US policy was in the region.

*

And it was the US that put nuclear missiles in Turkey in 1961 that I believe were even closer to the Russian border than the Cuba ones to the US. These were removed as part of the Russian agreement to remove their missiles from Cuba.

 

The heavy capitalists in the US will not recognize any country that employs socialism as Cuba does, except the countries that are on the other side of the world such as the Scandinavian countries. Americans don't know much about other countries and how their systems work for their citizens. It's always good for the US when there's a corrupt and often vicious dictator in a country,because then the people of said countries are under tight control and the money can flow to the dictator and cronies ,while american businesses suck their resources out from under them. Marcos,Papa Doc,Baby Doc,Bautista,ect were just fine with US businesses and our legislators. The CIA will even overthrow elected governments as they did in Chile if they start to show too much concern for their citizens by proposing land and/or economic reform. Doesn't look good to our Darwinists and the elections in South America with leftist/socialist governments being elected are probably lucky that the US is involved in wars in the middle east, otherwise they'd be getting some serious attention like Allende got.