US complicit in its own decline

[bemildred]

Copied from Economics, credit to acmavm for digging it up.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/FC31Dj02.html

By W Joseph Stroupe


<snip>
China is rising, economically, diplomatically and militarily, to threaten a displacement of the United States as the dominant power in Southeast Asia. Europe is
increasingly choosing the course of independence from the US: it currently rivals US gross domestic product (GDP) and is making joint economic and strategic
diplomatic agreements with US competitors Russia, China, India, Iran and others, while the US looks on warily.

South Korea is increasingly irritated with the US military presence and diplomatic posture on the Peninsula and is looking ahead to a settlement of the Korean
crisis that could significantly lessen, if not eliminate, US presence and influence. Japan likewise is displaying increasing irritation with the US diplomatic posture
and military presence in the region and is moving rapidly in the direction of remilitarization, independence and self-assertion, making its own energy-security deals
with Iran and Russia over US objections. Taiwan is also becoming more assertive, risking a conflagration with China, and obliging the US to make diplomatic
moves toward China, away from longtime ally Taiwan, in an effort to avoid the conflagration, in which the US would most likely be the prime geopolitical loser.

<snip>

the economy, stupid!'
The essence of US global power is its economic wealth. Every other form of its power is a derivative of that wealth. The US has been able to influence all the other
players on the geopolitical chessboard because it leads the global economy, and historically, it can therefore greatly reward or severely punish in ways and to an
extent that no one else can. This fact endows the US with tremendous political and diplomatic power and influence. It can develop and deploy the most awesome
and effective military machine in the world, enabling the projection of its power around the globe - all because it can "afford" it economically while no other nation
can. The standard of living and the freedoms enjoyed by its people give the US tremendous social and cultural influence across the globe - all rooted in its economic
prosperity. In every way US power derives from its economic capital.

Even the enemy terrorists realize the truth of this. Hence they attacked the very symbolic heart of America's economic power on September 11, 2001, in an effort to
damage the real source of US power. If that true source of power is ever spoiled significantly, or if the US economy could be throttled by an outside force, then the
last superpower will see a decline in the potency of all its derivative forms of power and influence. As a matter of fact, the evidence strongly indicates that decline
is already happening. How so?

[On the Road]

1. Great Editorial

It was posted in the obscure 'Economic Issues' forum earlier today, though.

[bemildred]

2. Please see my comment crediting acmavm.

I think it has much wider interest than economics.

[mikey_1962]

3. The Obituary of the US has been written many times...

each time it ha been wrong. In the thirties everybody was predicting that Socialism would leave the US in the dust.

In the 50's it was Global Communism. Nikita Khrushchev said "We will bury you" meaning that their economic power through rational control of the economy would force us to become communists.

In the 70's it was the environment; by know we were supposed to be wearing face masks and rationing food. We were going to freeze in the dark because we were running out of oil.

I believe this is another case of the wish being father to the thought.

[JAbuchan08]

4. Everybody thinks their empire will last eternally

To ignore signs of decline is pretty dumb. In any case the environment is still an issue that hasn't just disappeared. I don't like the GOP, but I will agree with them on one thing, threats don't disappear just because you ignore them.
To me this kinda runs along the same lines as "don't compare Bush to Hitler" or "don't suggest he knew about 9-11" because its impolite. It seems that this kind of reasoning is following with the idea that the most powerful man on Earth could not do something that calculated and evil, or that the most powerful country on Earth could not possibly allow that power to slip. Why? Because its America stupid, that sort of stuff happens in other countrys.
In short we think we are absolved of culpability in our future because we've been relatively successful (or lucky) in the past. It wouldn't hurt to be prepared.

[teryang]

5. Is there a monkey on my back?

This is a thought provoking piece which neglects the real focal point of the decline, the American domestic political scene. As long as everyone fancies himself a Disraeli or Count von Metternich sitting at the international chessboard all sorts of doomsday scenarios come to mind. Adam Smith and Alfred Thayer Mahan reign supreme in Darwinian minds of those scouring the world for scarce resources.

But crises begin at home. The concentration of American policy capital not on defense but on military contractors and corporate marketing problems is destabilizing and invites revanche. American embassies abroad have gone from ministerial outposts, to weapons salesman, to topplers of regimes, to conquerors of nations. All with a view to enriching American owned corporate carpetbaggers. This is a nineteenth century perspective (of how to make a dollar off the wogs) arising in part from power imbalances that the Eurasian powers since WWII (with the exception of the USSR) have not addressed. The British seem to have a natural affinity for this perspective.

Certain European financial interests have profited traditionally from the historical and cultural ties to certain parts of the world. After WWII this was the legacy of former colonial expansion and collapse. Now that the 800 pound gorilla in the pentagon is no longer tagged by the Russian navy and russian military advisors everywhere it goes, the career political parasites of the defense industry see that the time has come to reap the spoils of empire and take over the "little countries" in Africa, Asia, and S. America. Give a child a gun and he'll use it. Capital costs sunk into militaristic enterprise have to be justified. Ordinarily, military hardware just rusts. Without war it is of little or no economic use. It doesn't produce anything and it doesn't make a profit. With war, subversion, covert schemes, proxy armies and so on, there is a dollar to be made in empire, at someone else's expense. It may result in a huge budget and balance of payments deficits but for those who are connected to the venal center of power there is a profit.

Such effort does naturally arose the ire of other advanced powers. But where does the American impetus come from? This sort of colonial adventurism caused WWI and WWII. It arises from the lack of opportunity at home. A lack of opportunity imposed by corporate greed and the culture of consumption as reflected in the tax codes and legislation of national and state governments. The diversion of capital from infrastructure development, technological development and the development of human resources leaves an economy uncompetitive internationally and ill suited to generate profit.

The conservative cabal in power basically represents old industry, the same families that have ruled America for over a hundred years, some of these families, two hundred. Some of them harken back to the days of the opium wars and "unequal treaties." They are not known for innovations. In their view one can profit from the taking by hook or by crook, from ones own population and then when that is exhausted (stock market crash, loss of pensions, S&L crisis, etc.) the resources of other states. To the extent that available limited resources are devoted to the forces of coercion, our economic competetiveness is weakened accordingly. Instead of reviving the bases of economic strength we get more militaristic to protect the old order. The greatest transfers of wealth to foreign powers are facilitated by military spending and aggravated to the utmost by war. Japan is the economic power it is today based upon American war dollars transfers. Korean and Vietnam war dollars funded Honda, Sony and Toyota capital infrastructure.

Investing in people, through education, medical care, and regulation of industry produces profits and an environment conducive to honest and peaceful commerce. Such a nation is naturally competitive in commerce, contrary to the common outsourcing doctrines. Our national security police state inhibits commerce and defends a system of human exploitation to produce profits unfairly for those who are politically influential. It is a centralized government of carpetbaggers who seek immediate profits through militarism by small wars at the risk of greater conflagration who are the problem. They have rendered the nation uncompetitive economically with their policy agenda based upon short-sighted corporate greed. Believe me we don't need a 500 billion dollar military budget to sustain a peaceful world order. We could easily get by on half of that and we would be strengthened immensely by it.

I won't address the peak oil argument because the nation doesn't address it. It wouldn't be such a crises if the most palatable and reasonable measures were taken to mitigate its impact. Discussions of peak oil stand economic market theories on their head. What if one half the defense budget were spent on new energy infrastructure and initiatives?

[bemildred]

6. Very perceptive.

William McKinley would feel right at home.