Sobering Article on America's Decline as an Economic and Political Superpower

[metaphorge]

I'd like to encourage you to attempt to read the following article from Der Spiegel without getting angry. For many Americans it's going to be kind of difficult to do so; what I challenge you to do is to wait until the end to decide who you should get angry at: the people who wrote the article, or the people who allowed the conditions described within it to happen?

(Also encourage you not to become angry with me for posting it. )

THE END OF ARROGANCE:
America Loses Its Dominant Economic Role

(It's worth noting that I don't necessarily agree with all the conclusions this article reaches either, but I think it's a good idea to see where international opinion lies, especially as their economies are adversely affected by our own economic crisis.)

 

[metaphorge]

Particularly salient:

The effects of the financial crisis are already serious, both for the American taxpayer, who will end up footing the bill no matter what, and for the relationship between the government and the economy. An era of American economic policy is coming to a close. Ironically, and surprisingly to many, the last few months of the Bush administration will mark the end of the so-called "Reagan revolution."

Since the early 1980s, the United States has radically emphasized deregulation, which has meant lowering taxes, eliminating regulations and generally leaving the markets to their own devices. Ronald Reagan began his presidency in 1981 with this program, and it was following by a prolonged economic upturn.

It was driven in part by an aggressive policy of cheap money, for which a second icon of the American boom was responsible: former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. During the 18 years of his tenure, whenever there was trouble brewing in the stock market and financial markets, Greenspan would drown the crises in a flood of fresh money. Whether it was the 1997 market crash in the Asian tiger countries, the selloff of Russian government bonds a year later, the collapse of the LTCM hedge fund or, finally, the bursting of the New Economy bubble at the beginning of the new millennium, Greenspan's rescue operations could be counted on to return growth to the world's markets. But there was one thing Greenspan overlooked: By repeatedly printing money, he also laid the foundation for the next financial bubble, and its destructive energy grew from one intervention to the next.

Over the last 15 years, Greenspan was opposed to oversight and control over those companies that used the ready cash made available by his policies to introduce a wave of so-called financial innovations. As long as he was in office, he blocked all attempts to impose government collateral requirements on the credit, stock and financial markets. In Greenspan's view, it would only hamper "necessary flexibility."

His policies were borne out by the successes of two decades. Fed by cheap money and freed of most regulations, the American financial industry experienced an unprecedented boom. The industry's excessive growth was reflected in exorbitant salaries and ostentatious skyscrapers but also in the withdrawal of a large share of American value creation.

 

[DarkArtist81]

Great article man... Really hits home on a few points...

Reminds me of something I said last night about the important nature of how we look to other countries and the power we project both morally and financially. We might be coming to a whole new era of worldwide politics, one where we are no longer top dog and lose our international influence...

 

[Bodie The Cursed]

The World needs to work as a team in this day and age.

 

[Mesa]

I'm thorugh page 1, and not angry at all. It's very true. US has lost it economic dominance and it's military dominance isn't winning any allies over and gaining more and more enemies. I think it's a little short sighted to blame this all on Bush though; maybe for the military decisions, but not for the economic ones.

 

[Vader AL]

some points are made....too much of the writer's own opinion though and to me seems like a little too much German sensationalism.

 

[occulum]

The World needs to work as a team in this day and age.

you gotta be stoned ..... this is not a Bodie-esque comment ...

 

[metaphorge]

some points are made....too much of the writer's own opinion though and to me seems like a little too much German sensationalism.

That's fair, though I've noted that a lot of foreign journalism (of all stripes) doesn't try to present the illusion of being objective as miuch as American journalism, even sources like the BBC.

 

[Mesa]

That's fair, though I've noted that a lot of foreign journalism (of all stripes) doesn't try to present the illusion of being objective as miuch as American journalism, even sources like the BBC.

American journalism : objective

 

[darthviper107]

I'd just like to point out--the rest of the world's economy depends heavily on the U.S. economy and if we go down it means that so does a lot of other people. We're already seeing the big effect this is having on the economies of other countries so it's not like this is restricted to the U.S.

 

[tomandshell]

I think I'm going to move to the moon. Call me when all this gets sorted out.

 

[darthviper107]

I think I'm going to move to the moon. Call me when all this gets sorted out.

I don't think there's internet access on the moon

 

[Darklord Dave]

I don't think the article puts it all on Bush - it does mention that it's been a long time coming. But other countries are also in economic meltdown - and it can't all be blamed on the US.

 

[Spartan Rex]

A german magazine trying to write the obituary of the United States, classic.
Who gave us 2 World Wars and Adolph Hitler?
STFU.

 

[RJMacReady16]

I'd just like to point out--the rest of the world's economy depends heavily on the U.S. economy and if we go down it means that so does a lot of other people. We're already seeing the big effect this is having on the economies of other countries so it's not like this is restricted to the U.S.

Exactly. And in typical politician fashion, members of the UN were busy patting one another on the back and forging blurbs for the papers about the death of the US while their countries are riding our back into the abyss.

Very interesting article though. It's always fun to hear the bad guys' take on things.

 

[Anzik]

As an indicator that the US is still the dominant economic power in the world, I would argue that the effects of what happened here has affected much of the globe with considerable effect. If we were of diminished consequence, the crisis here wouldn't be felt in so many other markets. Conversely our recovery will enable the recovery of other nations. We are still, very much, the driving force of the world economy.
As far as the military, we are still considerably superior to the rest of the world. Who really competes with us? Russia? They might be trying to catch up, but they are still hurting from the collapse of the USSR. China is starving much of its population to afford weapons that it buys from Russia.
It's just human nature to want to see the top dog fail, except when someone needs help. Because its still us everyone looks to.

Also, Bush was VERY well received on his farewell trip to Europe, and look how many European countries have elected Pro American leaders lately.

 

[DPrime]

Haven't read the article yet (too late tonight, will tomorrow though), but my thoughts on this are basically this: should we really be looking at it as America's "downslide"? As far as I can tell America's influence is bound to go down a bit as other economies grow. Didn't we want countries like China and Russia to embrace capitalism rather than communism? Now they're doing it, and countries as big as that are bound to become more influential in the world as they become stronger.

The US, as one of those big countries, is likewise always going to have considerable influence in the world. No one should look at this as the "fall of America" or anything like that.

 

[DPrime]

As far as the military, we are still considerably superior to the rest of the world. Who really competes with us? Russia? They might be trying to catch up, but they are still hurting from the collapse of the USSR. China is starving much of its population to afford weapons that it buys from Russia.

lol, not quite so cut and dry my friend. Russia is still feeling the effects of the loss of the Cold War, yes, but it's an economic powerhouse right now, and so is China. China produces its own weapons these days btw. Depending on the circumstances of the conflict, either could potentially defeat the US in a war. If you're so sure, why didn't the US come to the aid of Georgia, its ally, when Russia invaded? Even George W. Bush knew military aid wasn't even an option.

 

[DPrime]

A german magazine trying to write the obituary of the United States, classic.
Who gave us 2 World Wars and Adolph Hitler?
STFU.

What a stupid thing to say.

 

[Darklord Dave]

lol, not quite so cut and dry my friend. Russia is still feeling the effects of the loss of the Cold War, yes, but it's an economic powerhouse right now, and so is China. China produces its own weapons these days btw. Depending on the circumstances of the conflict, either could potentially defeat the US in a war. If you're so sure, why didn't the US come to the aid of Georgia, its ally, when Russia invaded? Even George W. Bush knew military aid wasn't even an option.

Russia has oil, so they aren't hurting economically as much as the rest of the world. China seems to have arrested their economic growth since the Olympics and a lot of our economy is tied to theirs.

But as the price of oil goes down, the value of the dollar goes up so actually the US is probably going to recover faster than everyone else.