Will The U.S. Fall?

John Simpson writes:

"Still, China and India are different in almost every way from these overnight successes of the past. Their achievements are based on real work and real value, not merely on hype. And Europe, and to a lesser extent the US, have suffered from the very globalisation they themselves created. "

But more optimistically Simpson suggests:

"America, with two centuries of expertise in changing and redefining itself, will find new ways of staying at the top."

Man, you think way too much. Get on your bike and go for a long ride. Get all that political [censored] out of your system before it kills you.🙂

I guess I can do both. I did a long ride last night, a gym session today and now I rest.
The exercise helps clear my brain and I studied political stuff anyway.

shannons dad said:

Man, you think way too much. Get on your bike and go for a long ride. Get all that political [censored] out of your system before it kills you.🙂

Carrera said:

I guess I can do both. I did a long ride last night, a gym session today and now I rest.
The exercise helps clear my brain and I studied political stuff anyway.

of course america will fall : all empires do , basic law of entropy , it´s all there in the history books - only empires fall faster and further these days ; though who can really believe that the romans turned into italians ? 😕

Even so, the U.S. is a little different. It's an economic Empire based on the expansion of the dollar and doesn't have colonies.
Some people think the U.S. will continue to prosper in the new role as a rival to China.
However the case may be, I'm less optimistic about Europe as a whole.

el Inglés said:

of course america will fall : all empires do , basic law of entropy , it´s all there in the history books - only empires fall faster and further these days ; though who can really believe that the romans turned into italians ? 😕

As to the fall of the Romans, multiculturalism evidently played a big role. The American academic Robert Payne writes:

"Rome had Romanized the world yet it had lost much of its old identity as non-Romans swarmed in to dilute it. The capital had become the greatest melting pot of antiquity, :o peopled with swarthy Arabs and Syrians, olive-skinned Berbers, fair haired Gauls, bearded Dacians from beyond the Danube. and long-haired Scythians from remote regions of southern Russia who congregated in the streets, where the emperor - an Arab like Phillip or an Illyrian like his successor Decius passed in state. Greek merchants were everywhere, and the tonsured priests of Isis, in their immaculate white robes, were seen along with Jewish followers of Christ. So many races crowded into Rome that one might have been hard put to find a Roman face in a given assembly".

[font=Times New Roman]"Cities and Thrones and Powers"[/font]

[font=Times New Roman](Prelude to "Puck of Pook's Hill"😉

CITIES and Thrones and Powers
Stand in Time's eye,
Almost as long as flowers,
Which daily die:
But, as new buds put forth
To glad new men,
Out of the spent and unconsidered Earth,
The Cities rise again.

This season's Daffodil,
She never hears,
What change, what chance, what chill,
Cut down last year's;
But with bold countenance,
And knowledge small,
Esteems her seven days' continuance
To be perpetual.

So Time that is o'er-kind
To all that be,
Ordains us e'en as blind,
As bold as she:
That in our very death,
And burial sure,
Shadow to shadow, well persuaded, saith,
"See how our works endure!"

[/font]

i see parallels with the fall of rome and an impending fall of the us,
rome had
-difficulty collecting enought taxes to fund expansion
-unsafe trade routes and roads, it was impractical to attempt to guard the roads from raids.
-the ever expanding need for soldiers created a market for foreign and mercenary recruits who had no true allegience
-a general propensity towards over consumption and resultant need for more and more imported goods and resources
-as expansion reached its' limit, the borders were then constricted, but even this smaller area was impossible to defend
-the logistics of expansion and defense of areas occupied resulted in ever increasing deaths of roman soldiers

history does repeat itself, i'm sure the romans had their own repetitions of failed adventurism, such as the us is now going through with the current vietnam in the desert.

"we must destroy the villiage to save it"

el Inglés said:

of course america will fall : all empires do , basic law of entropy , it´s all there in the history books - only empires fall faster and further these days ; though who can really believe that the romans turned into italians ? 😕

Absolutely ,Roman Empire Scenario, but not in our lifetime. The Decline of the Roman Empire, if you read history. Not the fall! It took a long time!

History is a great teacher, if you follow it, and we are subject to repeat it.
Roman was never conquered, but that was in ancient times, but we are basically the same in the US, and the world with the exception of more technology.
We are racing mother nature or the forces of the universe(if you like) to take ourselves out.
Odds anyone? We are good, but I'll lay mother nature 14 points.
She is a ruthless [censored] if you look at big picture.

I would rather the US didn't fall. It would squash lots of little countries and clearing up the rancid blubber afterwards would be pretty foul. :P

Carrera said:

Just thought I'd outline a simple analysis of why the the U.S. seems to be in so much trouble of late.
Basically, it's all linked to the fall of the USSR which, in turn, brought about the reunification of Germany and advent of the E.U. This, by itself, created more economic competition for the U.S. and threw another major currency into the world arena - the Euro.?

Yeah, the French are not as competitive at the TdF, because now the race is open to the world… but I doubt too many people (even of France) think the race was better when the competition was only from latin speaking European countries…

Carrera said:

But it gets worse.
The fall of the USSR and abandonment of communism also gave rise to a resurgence of capitalism in China. This is where the U.S. really started to feel the pinch. All of a sudden, those home-grown American companies found it impossible to compete with China, where cheap labour has been rampant for a decade. Likewise, U.S. and German workers became a victim of the very capitalism they have promoted for the last century. That is, the American worker was no longer so economically viable. It has become more expensive to employ an American worker than a Chinese employee who will work for a small salary.

I don’t understand why american and german workers are victims of capitalism… wages in both countries are extremely generous and they are capable of living a very good lifestyle. Unemployment is relatively very low in both countries. Workers in China are cheap, so what? The only thing that gives them an advantage with regards to Europe and the US is something very labor intensive. And that is only because they have no opportunities yet. That will change as the economy develops.

Carrera said:

This is something John Kerry understood very well in the last election - outsourcing.

Umm outsourcing is about both parties creating more value than the sum of what both could do in isolation through specialization. If you think it makes sense for companies (or countries) to be totally vertically integrated or that American workers are “losing jobs“ because of outsoursing to china you understand as much about outsourcing as Kerry does. For sure as the infrastructure and level of education rises in China this will mean more competition for the higher value added goods and services, but how is this a bad thing? In all competition there are winners and losers, but the level of the game will rise as the competition increases. Whether the US is “on-top” or not only matters in you are a selfish american.

Carrera said:

And it gets even worse. India has now become the epicentre of cheap computer technicians and telecommunications operatives. Some even think India will outstrip China economically.

Supply and demand… IBM is currently implementing its strategy to make Brazil the technical support headquarters of the world because China is actually sucking up much of India’s intellectual power right now. Again how does this mean the US “loses” rather than the rest of the world is starting to play too?

Carrera said:

Now, the war in Iraq: There would have been no Iraq war had it not been for the fall of the USSR. The Iraq war was linked to an oil crisis in the U.S., fueled by the new demand and scarcity of oil brought about by China's fuel necessity. So, to be honest, the U.S. was actually far better off when half of Europe was still communist and U.S. companies were facing nothing like the current level of competition - which threatens to undermine global union rights and worker rights as the rich get ever richer and the environment suffers more pollution.
Of course, a very astute American President could save the day if the Americans can find one. I have to agree with George Soros that Kerry might just have pulled the U.S. out of trouble had we won the election but it still isn't too late.
And John Simpson believes America can still reinvent itself if it wishes to.
What do people think then. Will the U.S. fall or will it move forward and adapt?

You are all over the place here, but yeah the US is a culture of consumption that will most certainly prove to be its Achilles’ heel… at least short term (our lifetime).

One of the things that will take much time to enable China and other developing countries to compete is a culture change… and that may never happen. My company has several joint ventures in China and while the cost of labor is dirt cheap, the lack of developed infrastructure, combined with an extremely inefficient use of people (I have never seen so much waste of labor resources as in China) will have to change as the standard of living rises (along with wages). As a matter of fact in terms of cost, there are many things we make that are actually cheaper to manufacture in the US and Europe (labor is not a significant % of cost with complex products where product development and capital investment costs are high), but we are in China simply to be there as the giant awakes.

I disagree with your basic premise (at least that I have interpreted) as it being a bad thing that the US as a country may lose its dominance over the world economically. Fact is that the rest of the world will rise up to meet the US or stop along the way because of cultural reasons, rather than the US falling in absolute terms. Now our standard of living may indeed fall somewhat as we transition to a service economy similar to the UK but that is another discussion (no one seems to understand that manufacturing or refining natural resources is the only way to “create” value, and that service is merely a redistribution of what is already created… of course service can be more profitable as long as you are still in control of the forces that are actually creating the value you steal, but that is not maintainable indefinitely without tyranny…uh oh did I just give a segue way to Bush bashers 😄 ).

A lot of points you make to reply to here but first:
"I don’t understand why american and german workers are victims of capitalism… wages in both countries are extremely generous and they are capable of living a very good lifestyle. Unemployment is relatively very low in both countries."
This is fairly clear. Americans imagined the fall of the USSR would grant them access to new markets, especially oil. As in the case of Iraq, long term strategy was eclipsed by the immediate need for profit and the dollar.
So, there was a downside to the fall of the USSR and here is the downside:
(1) WMD were lost and smuggled out to rogue regimes.
(2) Germany reunified but reunification placed a heavy burden on West Germany, previously the backbone of the European economy. Unemployment in Germany is now colossal.
(3) Ethnic and racial tensions have begun to grow again in Europe and I personally believe we run a risk of a new outbreak of fascism as a reaction to Islamic militancy. Le Penn is becoming more popular in France and East Germans are backing more radical policies.
(4) Without the USSR to act as a counterweight, the U.S. has thrown caution to the wind and made some huge political errors, mainly over Iraq. Bush has been as harmful to the U.S. as Gorbachev was to the USSR. His Iraq policy is a series of massive mistakes and errors.
I guess the list could go on.
However, I'm not saying the U.S. will fall. Nobody really knows. Compared with other historical superpowers the U.S. is still very young. Rome lasted some 600 years as a global powerhouse.

wilmar13 said:

Yeah, the French are not as competitive at the TdF, because now the race is open to the world… but I doubt too many people (even of France) think the race was better when the competition was only from latin speaking European countries…

I don’t understand why american and german workers are victims of capitalism… wages in both countries are extremely generous and they are capable of living a very good lifestyle. Unemployment is relatively very low in both countries. Workers in China are cheap, so what? The only thing that gives them an advantage with regards to Europe and the US is something very labor intensive. And that is only because they have no opportunities yet. That will change as the economy develops.

Umm outsourcing is about both parties creating more value than the sum of what both could do in isolation through specialization. If you think it makes sense for companies (or countries) to be totally vertically integrated or that American workers are “losing jobs“ because of outsoursing to china you understand as much about outsourcing as Kerry does. For sure as the infrastructure and level of education rises in China this will mean more competition for the higher value added goods and services, but how is this a bad thing? In all competition there are winners and losers, but the level of the game will rise as the competition increases. Whether the US is “on-top” or not only matters in you are a selfish american.

Supply and demand… IBM is currently implementing its strategy to make Brazil the technical support headquarters of the world because China is actually sucking up much of India’s intellectual power right now. Again how does this mean the US “loses” rather than the rest of the world is starting to play too?

You are all over the place here, but yeah the US is a culture of consumption that will most certainly prove to be its Achilles’ heel… at least short term (our lifetime).

One of the things that will take much time to enable China and other developing countries to compete is a culture change… and that may never happen. My company has several joint ventures in China and while the cost of labor is dirt cheap, the lack of developed infrastructure, combined with an extremely inefficient use of people (I have never seen so much waste of labor resources as in China) will have to change as the standard of living rises (along with wages). As a matter of fact in terms of cost, there are many things we make that are actually cheaper to manufacture in the US and Europe (labor is not a significant % of cost with complex products where product development and capital investment costs are high), but we are in China simply to be there as the giant awakes.

I disagree with your basic premise (at least that I have interpreted) as it being a bad thing that the US as a country may lose its dominance over the world economically. Fact is that the rest of the world will rise up to meet the US or stop along the way because of cultural reasons, rather than the US falling in absolute terms. Now our standard of living may indeed fall somewhat as we transition to a service economy similar to the UK but that is another discussion (no one seems to understand that manufacturing or refining natural resources is the only way to “create” value, and that service is merely a redistribution of what is already created… of course service can be more profitable as long as you are still in control of the forces that are actually creating the value you steal, but that is not maintainable indefinitely without tyranny…uh oh did I just give a segue way to Bush bashers 😄 ).

I think the Roman Empire has almost everything in common with the British Empire. Both had colonies in the literal sense. Both winded up being over-populated by the peoples who had previously made up their colonies.
I studied the ethnic/religious transformation of the Roman Empire for some time and even wrote a few articles on the theme.
To simplify matters, the big mistake the Romans made was to import foreign religions such as Mithric cults, Isis cults, Judaism and Christianity. Christianity was especially harmful. Multiculturalism also weakened the nationalism that had made the Romans unbeatable on the battlefield, against Hannibal and Carthage, for instance.
In the end the Romans couldn't win skirmishes against disorganised bands of Huns and Goths. Most Roman conscripts were, in fact, immigrants from 350 A.D. onwards.
But the U.S. is unlike the Roman Empire and far more similar to Athens, I think. Athens was very into overthrowing foreign governments and imposing democracies that suited them.
But the U.S. has always been very good at economic empire and, in my view, they should go back to what they're good at - economic expansion. Bush has taken the U.S. in an imperialist direction but the problem is the U.S. is no good at Empire and building colonies overseas.
Had the Romans invaded Iraq, they would have done far better, won over the Iraqi opposition and won hearts and minds, as they say. But the U.S. is simply no good at overseas Empire tactics. They should go back to global economic export of the dollar economy and stick to what works.

jhuskey said:

Absolutely ,Roman Empire Scenario, but not in our lifetime. The Decline of the Roman Empire, if you read history. Not the fall! It took a long time!

History is a great teacher, if you follow it, and we are subject to repeat it.
Roman was never conquered, but that was in ancient times, but we are basically the same in the US, and the world with the exception of more technology.
We are racing mother nature or the forces of the universe(if you like) to take ourselves out.
Odds anyone? We are good, but I'll lay mother nature 14 points.
She is a ruthless [censored] if you look at big picture.

"They should go back to global economic export of the dollar economy and stick to what works."

P.S. I'm not being condescending. What people abroad love about the U.S. is the movies, Hollywood, coca cola, music stars, Beach boys, good weather and all that stuff. This is the American dream people can relate to. Exporting this kind of market brings a lot of capital gain for Americans and programs like Dallas did more to undermine communism than the Vietnam war.
But George Bush isn't marketable. Let's face it, if the people don't buy it you should change the trade name. 🙂

Carrera said:

"They should go back to global economic export of the dollar economy and stick to what works."

P.S. I'm not being condescending. What people abroad love about the U.S. is the movies, Hollywood, coca cola, music stars, Beach boys, good weather and all that stuff. This is the American dream people can relate to. Exporting this kind of market brings a lot of capital gain for Americans and programs like Dallas did more to undermine communism than the Vietnam war.
But George Bush isn't marketable. Let's face it, if the people don't buy it you should change the trade name. 🙂

Beach Boys... we have found the root of world discontinuity. The world is stuck in the 60's.

I guess what I'm trying to say is there are positive and negative images of America.
The negative:
(1) Lyndie England smoking a flip, holding an Iraqi POW on a dog leash 😠
(2) George W Bush. 😠 🙁 😠 🙁
(3) Images of war and destruction. 🙁
The positive:
(1) Starsky and Hutch 😉
(2) Hollywood 😉
(3) Fast food and pizza 😉
(4) Beach Boys, Madonna, Wacko Jacko, e.t.c. 😉
The saying goes that when we're popular we get richer and prosper. When we're unpopular we get poorer and our image suffers.

jhuskey said:

Beach Boys... we have found the root of world discontinuity. The world is stuck in the 60's.

Carrera said:

I guess what I'm trying to say is there are positive and negative images of America.
The negative:
(1) Lyndie England smoking a flip, holding an Iraqi POW on a dog leash 😠
(2) George W Bush. 😠 🙁 😠 🙁
(3) Images of war and destruction. 🙁
The positive:
(1) Starsky and Hutch 😉
(2) Hollywood 😉
(3) Fast food and pizza 😉
(4) Beach Boys, Madonna, Wacko Jacko, e.t.c. 😉
The saying goes that when we're popular we get richer and prosper. When we're unpopular we get poorer and our image suffers.

Starsky and Hutch? Well that's what makes the world an intersting place. We all have different things that "trips our trigger". Madonna huh?

Lyndie England is just a redneck, but if that is the worst that ever happened in the world I would invite you all for a world celebration and buy all the beer.
Wilmar13 said he would chip in. Just kidding of course, Wil never said he would chip in on the party but I imagine he would.
The best thing about the US are some damn good everyday people that the rest of the world will probably never meet or see on TV and Visa Versa.
Trust me on this! One thing that I have learned in my numerous years is that anything worth having takes a lot of effort and has many facets and that is somtimes too complex and difficut for some to fathom and execute, and therin lies the problem.
Quick solutions are only found in Hollywood movies,unfortunately.
]
Wil: The problem with your post is that it is too well thought out and endowed with way too much truth.
It will never sell!
Take my advise get "[censored] faced drunk" and lie like dog. It seems to play better.
PS: I have it on good authority that Madonna is throwing a Pizza party and inviting GW,MJ and Lyndie. Mike Tyson is the featured speaker.

wilmar13 said:

Yeah, the French are not as competitive at the TdF, because now the race is open to the world… but I doubt too many people (even of France) think the race was better when the competition was only from latin speaking European countries…

I don’t understand why american and german workers are victims of capitalism… wages in both countries are extremely generous and they are capable of living a very good lifestyle. Unemployment is relatively very low in both countries. Workers in China are cheap, so what? The only thing that gives them an advantage with regards to Europe and the US is something very labor intensive. And that is only because they have no opportunities yet. That will change as the economy develops.

Umm outsourcing is about both parties creating more value than the sum of what both could do in isolation through specialization. If you think it makes sense for companies (or countries) to be totally vertically integrated or that American workers are “losing jobs“ because of outsoursing to china you understand as much about outsourcing as Kerry does. For sure as the infrastructure and level of education rises in China this will mean more competition for the higher value added goods and services, but how is this a bad thing? In all competition there are winners and losers, but the level of the game will rise as the competition increases. Whether the US is “on-top” or not only matters in you are a selfish american.

Supply and demand… IBM is currently implementing its strategy to make Brazil the technical support headquarters of the world because China is actually sucking up much of India’s intellectual power right now. Again how does this mean the US “loses” rather than the rest of the world is starting to play too?

You are all over the place here, but yeah the US is a culture of consumption that will most certainly prove to be its Achilles’ heel… at least short term (our lifetime).

One of the things that will take much time to enable China and other developing countries to compete is a culture change… and that may never happen. My company has several joint ventures in China and while the cost of labor is dirt cheap, the lack of developed infrastructure, combined with an extremely inefficient use of people (I have never seen so much waste of labor resources as in China) will have to change as the standard of living rises (along with wages). As a matter of fact in terms of cost, there are many things we make that are actually cheaper to manufacture in the US and Europe (labor is not a significant % of cost with complex products where product development and capital investment costs are high), but we are in China simply to be there as the giant awakes.

I disagree with your basic premise (at least that I have interpreted) as it being a bad thing that the US as a country may lose its dominance over the world economically. Fact is that the rest of the world will rise up to meet the US or stop along the way because of cultural reasons, rather than the US falling in absolute terms. Now our standard of living may indeed fall somewhat as we transition to a service economy similar to the UK but that is another discussion (no one seems to understand that manufacturing or refining natural resources is the only way to “create” value, and that service is merely a redistribution of what is already created… of course service can be more profitable as long as you are still in control of the forces that are actually creating the value you steal, but that is not maintainable indefinitely without tyranny…uh oh did I just give a segue way to Bush bashers 😄 ).

I think you have missed a very basic point. Your economic theory works fine all things being equal, but all things are not equal. China and India do not work on the same social structure as the western world. China may have turned its economy towards capitalism but it is still a Social dictatorship. Your theory seems to rely on good old capitalistic supply and demand to bring equilibrium to the labour market over time but I think you are looking at the wrong supply and demand. I think it is a case of I demand you supply this OR ELSE! And that is why I think your theory is flawed. What scares me most is that the USA had a similiar situation a hundred or two years ago that resulted in civil war......I hope we dont end up with the global equivilant but alas I believe we will.

Fixey said:

I think you have missed a very basic point. Your economic theory works fine all things being equal, but all things are not equal. China and India do not work on the same social structure as the western world. China may have turned its economy towards capitalism but it is still a Social dictatorship. .

I think you didn’t understand my post. One of my arguments WAS that China and to a lesser extent India (all developing countries for that matter) have a totally different culture that unless it radically changes will never be able to compete in an economic sense with the west. With regards to the Chinese they only value security and equality but both are totally counter to competition in its purest form. They do not value efficiency or profit (in Shanghais this is changing however). This is one of the major problems that almost all Western companies trying to make inroads into China are experiencing. Right now the only threat they pose is competition for resources and this is not going to change anytime in the near future.

Fixey said:

Your theory seems to rely on good old capitalistic supply and demand to bring equilibrium to the labour market over time but I think you are looking at the wrong supply and demand. I think it is a case of I demand you supply this OR ELSE! And that is why I think your theory is flawed.

And I have to admit I can’t understand what you are saying here. There was very little theory in my post and what theory there was, isn’t mine. If you are referring to my comments about competition, that isn’t theory, that is an axiom. Competition is only bad from the perspective of the selfish loser… many people tend to get upset over the individual losers, rather than the collective good. I find it ironic that those that espouse evolution the most fervently are also the first to argue against economic competition. I don’t care if the US becomes a “loser” in the short term or long term, as long as the game is at a higher level, humanity in general will have a higher standard of living…but my opinion regarding Carreras original post is that the US isn’t going to fall out of the top 3 anytime soon.

Fixey said:

What scares me most is that the USA had a similiar situation a hundred or two years ago that resulted in civil war......I hope we dont end up with the global equivilant but alas I believe we will.

The civil war in the US was about States Rights… those in the south wanted to be something like the EU is today, and the North wanted the Federal government to have almost absolute control. We can all talk about it over beers at Huskey’s house. I hope its OK with everyone, I am bringing Tsingtao and Cobra. 😉