6 ms·

America Loses Its Dominant Economic Role

29 points by peakok 18y ago

nlanier 18y ago
America contains 5% of the world's population yet remains a leader with 20& of the world's economic output. Watch the markets. The American markets dictate what overseas markets due on a daily basis, not the other way around. Sure, things aren't rosy, but to suggest that the American economy is anything less than a clear cut economic leader is silly.
- dejb 18y ago
  > America contains 5% of the world's population yet remains a leader with 20& of the world's economic output So what? Most first world countries earn about similar amounts per capita as the US. > The American markets dictate what overseas markets due on a daily basis To some extent this is an interpretation. The story that people (such news reporters) tell to explain the day's trading. However it is a fair interpretation at the moment. Dominating the world economy with only 20% of the worlds output is surely an impressive feat. But doesn't that make it even easier to see why it may not continue? If that 20% has a serious malfunction and has been relying on credit from the other 80% then don't you think portions of the other 80% are going to start asserting more independence? If you think that the US will be able to continue to dictate economic terms to the world you are in for a rude awakening.
- netcan 18y ago
  I think the line this article is taking is one that has been told for a while. It's just now possible that it will become visible in the next few years. The US may continue it's first place in % of world GDP for a long time (depending on how we define the EU), but that's not going to mean what it used to. First with 15% when second third & fourth come in at 14, 13 & 12 doesn't have the same sort of affect on the world. In 2006 the surprise free (exact continuation of existing trends) prediction for the economic superpower map was China surpassing the States by 2040 with India not far behind & several countries at around 50% of the US's GDP. The China-US equivalent was then moved to 2025 in 2007 (when the dollar went on the move). Now, a year down the line we hit another bump (so much for no surprises). China's political dependence on economic growth & preference for good news, might mean it's a while before anyone knows how China is affected. They could come out more affected then the US. But that said, it seems possible that the US will indeed be only one of several big players very soon. China doesn't seem too interested in exerting political influence beyond their immediate interests currently. Russia does but is not likely to wield enough power soon. The EU is not a great mechanism for converting economic power to military & political power. So the US will probably have a little more pull then their % of GDP should entitle them to, for a while. But USA 2020 is not the same kind of a power as US 1990. Potentially similar to Russia 1970 vs 2000. The reality about things like 'The War on Terror' is that opinions of it among academics, analysts, intelligent politicians (who by definition do not disclose their true feelings on the subject) and importantly security/military experts are that it is a threat on par with organised crime, HIV, traffic accidents or whatever other troubles they might have. Only a small handful of countries are seriously threatened by 'terrorists' either in terms of affecting the lives of citizens (eg Israel) or politically (eg Lebanon). And that is a far less serious threat then your average border conflict between nations (which is likely result in loss of sovereignty or territory) or internal conflicts. The thing is, that makes sense. Britain copped a bombing. I don't want to belittle that but if not for the political ramifications, that's no worse then what a month of bad weather can do to traffic accidents. Certainly affects people's lives a lot less then things like healthcare, policing or education. It's not a danger of the 'Napoleon is coming' kind nor is signing up to the a war effort controversially effective in stopping it. If that's the opinion of most while the US president is still talking terrorists, the US comes off as irrelevant. Almost like talking about making a choice between Socialism & Barbarism.
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    Quick correction. You mistake the effects of terrorism to only be immediate-damage-related. Terrorism is an existential threat in a democracy because the goal is to create wide swings in public opinion to make the democracy do things which are harmful to it.
    - netcan 18y ago
      I agree. But political, psychological implications considered, Britain is not under a serious threat from terrorism. Neither is France, Germany, Canada, Japan or virtually anyone else. The US is more susceptible to terrorism largely because of its rhetoric. They could for example, get drawn into or prolong a war. But that's not the same kind of threat that even dwarfs like N. Korea or Iran present. Terrorism fast hits a brick wall. If attacks become common in The States (eg 5 per year) long term, they will get used to it. Just like gang violence. You could theoretically just ignore it & the US would still be the US. The same could not ba said of the Cold War War II, or any other 'real' war.
      - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
        Think about your use of the word serious. Wars are fought until one side decides to stop fighting. Laws are made because people are emotional creatures. I'm not going to get long-winded, but there are plenty of examples of small losses of lives leading to major policy changes, loss of freedom, change of ruling party, decisions to either engage or disengage large military forces etc. Terrorism is an emotional warfare, not one in which you count up the damage on a balance sheet. The outcomes I mention are extremely serious. Outcomes that are easily existentially important to the state.
josefresco 18y ago
Other countries also love the stuff we in America produce, I think Buffet said in his Charlie Rose interview that we export 12% of our GDP which is good but also pales in comparison to how much we consume which is where a lot of the global market makes it's money (from US consumers).
angstrom 18y ago
The only real saving grace is the speculators that were allowed to be wiped out.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
callmeed 18y ago
2007 GPD in millions of USD: (1) United States 13,843,825 (2) Japan 4,383,762 (3) Germany 3,322,147 (4) China (PRC) 3,250,827 (5) United Kingdom 2,772,570 (6) France 2,560,255 (7) Italy 2,104,666 Hey Spiegel, why don't you come back when Germany's GDP hits double-digit trillions.
- sfk 18y ago
  Statistics, statistics... European Union: $16.62 trillion (2007 est.) United States: $13.84 trillion (2007 est.)
  - known 18y ago
    "A country is not made of land; a country is made of its people." -- G.A.Rao
  - callmeed 18y ago
    You can deny statistics all you want, but the US is still a dominant economic force–even with a financial crisis (and partly because the crisis affects the EU and the rest of the world). Europe may have a centralized bank–but they _don't_ have a centralized government. So, if/when they have a huge financial crisis, what government will intervene?
  - miked 18y ago
    Statistics, statistics... European Union: 500,000,000 people United States: 304,000,000 people
    - jorgeortiz85 18y ago
      The US also works much longer hours. People in France and Germany produce 30-40% more GDP per hour of work than people in the US do.
      - miked 18y ago
        Umm, no. From the Boston Globe: "American workers stay longer in the office, at the factory, or on the farm than their counterparts in Europe and most other rich nations, and they produce more per person over the year. They also get more done per hour than everyone but the Norwegians, according to a UN report that said the United States "leads the world in labor productivity." The report was released in Geneva today, which is Labor Day in the United States. The average US worker produces $63,885 of wealth per year, more than their counterparts in all other countries, the International Labor Organization said in its report. Ireland comes in second at $55,986, followed by Luxembourg at $55,641, Belgium at $55,235, and France at $54,609. http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/09/03/study_us_workers_are_worlds_most_productive/ http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/09/03/... My guess is that the Norwegians are doing so well because they are a tiny country with a massive amount of oil exports. These figures are all the more surprising since, when one works fewer hours, the rate of productivity should be higher, not lower, as the low-hanging fruit get picked first (law of marginal utility). Moreover, the trend is that the US productivity rate is increasing faster than that of Europe. At current trends, it won't be many years from now when the EU has a per capita GDP less than half that of the US. <rant> One of our problems is that we are working long hours to pay for the defense of the rest of the free world while Europe goes on vacation. When you get up and go to work in the morning, think a fond thought for our European "allies" who are taking the day off. We need to get out of NATO now. Let the Russians shut off the gas to them (again), or the Arabs and Iranians shut off their oil, or the "youths" of indeterminate cultural background burn a few thousand more cars. The Europeans (it wasn't just the Germans and Italians) have killed about 400,000 of our young men. That's enough, I think. </rant>
ajross 18y ago
"Also on display is the end of arrogance. The Americans are now paying the price for their pride." Pure schadenfreude, most of it. Kind of sad, really, given that Der Spiegel has a reputation for serious content. Most of the criticism of US policy is valid, as far as it goes. And, yes, those policies have produced a ton of bad blood among trading partners. But this article just drips with glee at the plight of the poor, dumb 'mericans. That's just beneath them. Terrible journalism.
- olefoo 18y ago
  > this article just drips with glee at the plight of the poor, dumb 'mericans. Perhaps that is a warning sign that we should heed? When even our allies are glad to see us brought low, that suggests that perhaps maybe we have not been as well behaved as we should have been.
  - anamax 18y ago
    Why? What are they going to do different? When something bad happens to them or they get scared, they're going to start screaming for us to help them. When there's a problem somewhere else, they're still going to insist that we fix it and complain that we didn't do it "right". Interestingly enough, there are very few problems that they can handle on their own and the value of their cooperation is "iffy" at best (see Afghanistan). When you point out that they're impotent, they always point to their GDP and never point to what they can do. They'll keep selling us stuff and buying from us. The only thing that will change is that they'll feel better about insulting tourists. So much for "old world class".
    - andyking 18y ago
      I don't think it's fair to describe Britain's contribution in Afghanistan (or indeed Iraq) as "iffy".
      - herdrick 18y ago
        And not just Britain.
davidw 18y ago
Perhaps America should check behind its Couch. These sorts of articles are reddit-bait.
- eru 18y ago
  The Spiegel should change its cover layout. In Germany I always fear I being mistaken as a socialist Spiegel reader when I carry my Economist around.
dhimes 18y ago
see also http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=321318 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=321318
larryfreeman 18y ago
I think that it's too early to say that America has lost its dominant economic role. When it's true, it won't make such a long news story because it will be obvious and uninteresting. The length of the news stories shows that it is still early. So far, the only one who says America is about to collapse is the crazy president of Iran.
- adrianwaj 18y ago
  After reading this article: http://bit.ly/2QsjEr http://bit.ly/2QsjEr I had a feeling that this article would be off-key. "Financial Crisis: So much for tirades against American greed" "It took a weekend to shatter the complacency of German finance minister Peer Steinbrück. Last Thursday he told us that the financial crisis was an "American problem", the fruit of Anglo-Saxon greed and inept regulation that would cost the United States its "superpower status"...By Monday, Mr Steinbrück was having to orchestrate Germany's biggest bank bail-out, putting together a €35 billion loan package to save Hypo Real Estate."
blackguardx 18y ago
America is still a dominant economic force right now, but the writing is on the wall. Unless careful action is taken, I think all the signs point towards a decline in America's ability to project its power. As an American in my 20's, I grew up listening to hearing about how we were such a good country with a good government, ruled by the people. Everyone preached how we were so free, how our freedom defined us. America's decline won't just be caused by the current financial crisis. You cannot separate this phenomenon from our decreased standing in the world's eyes as a shining beacon on a hill. We were supposed to be a model democracy. The events in Iraq and Afghanistan, the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib, extraordinary rendition, and Guantanamo Bay have lead to world to look away from us when it comes to morality. We no longer occupy the moral high ground. We no longer serve as a guideline for how to run a democracy. Now, with the financial crisis in full swing, we no longer serve as a guideline for how to manage an economy either. Granted, we are still a large nation with many wealthy consumers. It will probably take a generation for the full effects of our fall from grace to come to fruition. But, when it comes down to it, we simply cannot maintain our place in the world when the confidence in our country has been shaken so much, both in terms of our government and our economic systems.
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  Not looking for a fight, but none of these things are new. Initiating armed conflict: Spanish-American War, various invasions into Mexico, to some degree Vietnam Wartime screw-ups/atrocities: MyLai (sp?), firebombing of Dresden Extraordinary rendition: probably the basis of every other spy novel for the past 50 years. Nothing new except for the outrage We still make things people want -- we have creativity and ideas that the rest of the world desires. Take a look at Hollywood, or the electronic games industry, or the advances in microcircuitry. We were supposed to be a model democracy, yes. But democracies are made of people, and people do bad or boneheaded stuff. The trick is that we have a system where we make mistakes and then learn from them, not that no mistakes are ever made. I just wouldn't be too pessimistic. I'm more concerned with the rise of people who think they can use some sort of social engineering to make the world perfect than the foibles of our current reality.
  - 18y ago
natch 18y ago
Heckofa job, Republicans.
dhimes 18y ago
Notice the authors didn't sign their names to the story. When the US bounces back from this, and I am completely convinced it will, it will have the 'respect of the world' again. As Buffet pointed out with Rose, the US is hacking new frontiers in the advancement of the standard of living. But there are perils in being a pioneer, and the US is working through one now.
- qwph 18y ago
  > Notice the authors didn't sign their names to the story. That's odd, I had assumed that the list of names at the end of the article were the authors... Beat Balzli, Klaus Brinkbaumer, Frank Hornig, Hans Hoyng, Armin Mahler, Alexander Neubacher, Wolfgang Reuter, Christoph Pauly, Michael Sauga
  - dhimes 18y ago
    I believe that you are correct. My mistake.
gills 18y ago
Is Germany one of the nations threatening to stop buying Treasuries if we don't buy back the subprime meatballs?
lst 18y ago
This doesn't surprise me: the highly risky money speculations (all invented in the US) had to come to an end, sooner or later. They did well as long as the US had a continuous growth, but there are now many 'New Americas' out there, which will make there own new way of life. America: sorry, but you're getting old already...
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
cmars232 18y ago
World trade will become irrelevant once we develop our own energy independence and desktop manufacturing. These two technological breakthroughs will render cultural and economic hegemonies irrelevant. The next great economic triumph won't be the victory of any particular country or region. It will be the emergence of distributed and decentralized economic power. That's how I'd like to see it go down, anyhow..
- olefoo 18y ago
  There wil;l still be resource contention, fresh water for instance.
  - DabAsteroid 18y ago
    http://www.google.com/search?q=nuclear+desalination http://www.google.com/search?q=nuclear+desalination

29 points by peakok 18y ago

America contains 5% of the world's population yet remains a leader with 20& of the world's economic output. Watch the markets. The American markets dictate what overseas markets due on a daily basis, not the other way around. Sure, things aren't rosy, but to suggest that the American economy is anything less than a clear cut economic leader is silly.

dejb 18y ago
> America contains 5% of the world's population yet remains a leader with 20& of the world's economic output So what? Most first world countries earn about similar amounts per capita as the US. > The American markets dictate what overseas markets due on a daily basis To some extent this is an interpretation. The story that people (such news reporters) tell to explain the day's trading. However it is a fair interpretation at the moment. Dominating the world economy with only 20% of the worlds output is surely an impressive feat. But doesn't that make it even easier to see why it may not continue? If that 20% has a serious malfunction and has been relying on credit from the other 80% then don't you think portions of the other 80% are going to start asserting more independence? If you think that the US will be able to continue to dictate economic terms to the world you are in for a rude awakening.
netcan 18y ago
I think the line this article is taking is one that has been told for a while. It's just now possible that it will become visible in the next few years. The US may continue it's first place in % of world GDP for a long time (depending on how we define the EU), but that's not going to mean what it used to. First with 15% when second third & fourth come in at 14, 13 & 12 doesn't have the same sort of affect on the world. In 2006 the surprise free (exact continuation of existing trends) prediction for the economic superpower map was China surpassing the States by 2040 with India not far behind & several countries at around 50% of the US's GDP. The China-US equivalent was then moved to 2025 in 2007 (when the dollar went on the move). Now, a year down the line we hit another bump (so much for no surprises). China's political dependence on economic growth & preference for good news, might mean it's a while before anyone knows how China is affected. They could come out more affected then the US. But that said, it seems possible that the US will indeed be only one of several big players very soon. China doesn't seem too interested in exerting political influence beyond their immediate interests currently. Russia does but is not likely to wield enough power soon. The EU is not a great mechanism for converting economic power to military & political power. So the US will probably have a little more pull then their % of GDP should entitle them to, for a while. But USA 2020 is not the same kind of a power as US 1990. Potentially similar to Russia 1970 vs 2000. The reality about things like 'The War on Terror' is that opinions of it among academics, analysts, intelligent politicians (who by definition do not disclose their true feelings on the subject) and importantly security/military experts are that it is a threat on par with organised crime, HIV, traffic accidents or whatever other troubles they might have. Only a small handful of countries are seriously threatened by 'terrorists' either in terms of affecting the lives of citizens (eg Israel) or politically (eg Lebanon). And that is a far less serious threat then your average border conflict between nations (which is likely result in loss of sovereignty or territory) or internal conflicts. The thing is, that makes sense. Britain copped a bombing. I don't want to belittle that but if not for the political ramifications, that's no worse then what a month of bad weather can do to traffic accidents. Certainly affects people's lives a lot less then things like healthcare, policing or education. It's not a danger of the 'Napoleon is coming' kind nor is signing up to the a war effort controversially effective in stopping it. If that's the opinion of most while the US president is still talking terrorists, the US comes off as irrelevant. Almost like talking about making a choice between Socialism & Barbarism.
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  Quick correction. You mistake the effects of terrorism to only be immediate-damage-related. Terrorism is an existential threat in a democracy because the goal is to create wide swings in public opinion to make the democracy do things which are harmful to it.
  - netcan 18y ago
    I agree. But political, psychological implications considered, Britain is not under a serious threat from terrorism. Neither is France, Germany, Canada, Japan or virtually anyone else. The US is more susceptible to terrorism largely because of its rhetoric. They could for example, get drawn into or prolong a war. But that's not the same kind of threat that even dwarfs like N. Korea or Iran present. Terrorism fast hits a brick wall. If attacks become common in The States (eg 5 per year) long term, they will get used to it. Just like gang violence. You could theoretically just ignore it & the US would still be the US. The same could not ba said of the Cold War War II, or any other 'real' war.
    - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
      Think about your use of the word serious. Wars are fought until one side decides to stop fighting. Laws are made because people are emotional creatures. I'm not going to get long-winded, but there are plenty of examples of small losses of lives leading to major policy changes, loss of freedom, change of ruling party, decisions to either engage or disengage large military forces etc. Terrorism is an emotional warfare, not one in which you count up the damage on a balance sheet. The outcomes I mention are extremely serious. Outcomes that are easily existentially important to the state.

josefresco 18y ago

Other countries also love the stuff we in America produce, I think Buffet said in his Charlie Rose interview that we export 12% of our GDP which is good but also pales in comparison to how much we consume which is where a lot of the global market makes it's money (from US consumers).

angstrom 18y ago

The only real saving grace is the speculators that were allowed to be wiped out.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

callmeed 18y ago

2007 GPD in millions of USD: (1) United States 13,843,825 (2) Japan 4,383,762 (3) Germany 3,322,147 (4) China (PRC) 3,250,827 (5) United Kingdom 2,772,570 (6) France 2,560,255 (7) Italy 2,104,666 Hey Spiegel, why don't you come back when Germany's GDP hits double-digit trillions.

sfk 18y ago
Statistics, statistics... European Union: $16.62 trillion (2007 est.) United States: $13.84 trillion (2007 est.)
- known 18y ago
  "A country is not made of land; a country is made of its people." -- G.A.Rao
- callmeed 18y ago
  You can deny statistics all you want, but the US is still a dominant economic force–even with a financial crisis (and partly because the crisis affects the EU and the rest of the world). Europe may have a centralized bank–but they _don't_ have a centralized government. So, if/when they have a huge financial crisis, what government will intervene?
- miked 18y ago
  Statistics, statistics... European Union: 500,000,000 people United States: 304,000,000 people
  - jorgeortiz85 18y ago
    The US also works much longer hours. People in France and Germany produce 30-40% more GDP per hour of work than people in the US do.
    - miked 18y ago
      Umm, no. From the Boston Globe: "American workers stay longer in the office, at the factory, or on the farm than their counterparts in Europe and most other rich nations, and they produce more per person over the year. They also get more done per hour than everyone but the Norwegians, according to a UN report that said the United States "leads the world in labor productivity." The report was released in Geneva today, which is Labor Day in the United States. The average US worker produces $63,885 of wealth per year, more than their counterparts in all other countries, the International Labor Organization said in its report. Ireland comes in second at $55,986, followed by Luxembourg at $55,641, Belgium at $55,235, and France at $54,609. http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/09/03/study_us_workers_are_worlds_most_productive/ http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/09/03/... My guess is that the Norwegians are doing so well because they are a tiny country with a massive amount of oil exports. These figures are all the more surprising since, when one works fewer hours, the rate of productivity should be higher, not lower, as the low-hanging fruit get picked first (law of marginal utility). Moreover, the trend is that the US productivity rate is increasing faster than that of Europe. At current trends, it won't be many years from now when the EU has a per capita GDP less than half that of the US. <rant> One of our problems is that we are working long hours to pay for the defense of the rest of the free world while Europe goes on vacation. When you get up and go to work in the morning, think a fond thought for our European "allies" who are taking the day off. We need to get out of NATO now. Let the Russians shut off the gas to them (again), or the Arabs and Iranians shut off their oil, or the "youths" of indeterminate cultural background burn a few thousand more cars. The Europeans (it wasn't just the Germans and Italians) have killed about 400,000 of our young men. That's enough, I think. </rant>

ajross 18y ago

"Also on display is the end of arrogance. The Americans are now paying the price for their pride." Pure schadenfreude, most of it. Kind of sad, really, given that Der Spiegel has a reputation for serious content. Most of the criticism of US policy is valid, as far as it goes. And, yes, those policies have produced a ton of bad blood among trading partners. But this article just drips with glee at the plight of the poor, dumb 'mericans. That's just beneath them. Terrible journalism.

olefoo 18y ago
> this article just drips with glee at the plight of the poor, dumb 'mericans. Perhaps that is a warning sign that we should heed? When even our allies are glad to see us brought low, that suggests that perhaps maybe we have not been as well behaved as we should have been.
- anamax 18y ago
  Why? What are they going to do different? When something bad happens to them or they get scared, they're going to start screaming for us to help them. When there's a problem somewhere else, they're still going to insist that we fix it and complain that we didn't do it "right". Interestingly enough, there are very few problems that they can handle on their own and the value of their cooperation is "iffy" at best (see Afghanistan). When you point out that they're impotent, they always point to their GDP and never point to what they can do. They'll keep selling us stuff and buying from us. The only thing that will change is that they'll feel better about insulting tourists. So much for "old world class".
  - andyking 18y ago
    I don't think it's fair to describe Britain's contribution in Afghanistan (or indeed Iraq) as "iffy".
    - herdrick 18y ago
      And not just Britain.

davidw 18y ago

Perhaps America should check behind its Couch. These sorts of articles are reddit-bait.

eru 18y ago
The Spiegel should change its cover layout. In Germany I always fear I being mistaken as a socialist Spiegel reader when I carry my Economist around.

dhimes 18y ago

see also http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=321318 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=321318

larryfreeman 18y ago

I think that it's too early to say that America has lost its dominant economic role. When it's true, it won't make such a long news story because it will be obvious and uninteresting. The length of the news stories shows that it is still early. So far, the only one who says America is about to collapse is the crazy president of Iran.

adrianwaj 18y ago
After reading this article: http://bit.ly/2QsjEr http://bit.ly/2QsjEr I had a feeling that this article would be off-key. "Financial Crisis: So much for tirades against American greed" "It took a weekend to shatter the complacency of German finance minister Peer Steinbrück. Last Thursday he told us that the financial crisis was an "American problem", the fruit of Anglo-Saxon greed and inept regulation that would cost the United States its "superpower status"...By Monday, Mr Steinbrück was having to orchestrate Germany's biggest bank bail-out, putting together a €35 billion loan package to save Hypo Real Estate."

blackguardx 18y ago

America is still a dominant economic force right now, but the writing is on the wall. Unless careful action is taken, I think all the signs point towards a decline in America's ability to project its power. As an American in my 20's, I grew up listening to hearing about how we were such a good country with a good government, ruled by the people. Everyone preached how we were so free, how our freedom defined us. America's decline won't just be caused by the current financial crisis. You cannot separate this phenomenon from our decreased standing in the world's eyes as a shining beacon on a hill. We were supposed to be a model democracy. The events in Iraq and Afghanistan, the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib, extraordinary rendition, and Guantanamo Bay have lead to world to look away from us when it comes to morality. We no longer occupy the moral high ground. We no longer serve as a guideline for how to run a democracy. Now, with the financial crisis in full swing, we no longer serve as a guideline for how to manage an economy either. Granted, we are still a large nation with many wealthy consumers. It will probably take a generation for the full effects of our fall from grace to come to fruition. But, when it comes down to it, we simply cannot maintain our place in the world when the confidence in our country has been shaken so much, both in terms of our government and our economic systems.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago
Not looking for a fight, but none of these things are new. Initiating armed conflict: Spanish-American War, various invasions into Mexico, to some degree Vietnam Wartime screw-ups/atrocities: MyLai (sp?), firebombing of Dresden Extraordinary rendition: probably the basis of every other spy novel for the past 50 years. Nothing new except for the outrage We still make things people want -- we have creativity and ideas that the rest of the world desires. Take a look at Hollywood, or the electronic games industry, or the advances in microcircuitry. We were supposed to be a model democracy, yes. But democracies are made of people, and people do bad or boneheaded stuff. The trick is that we have a system where we make mistakes and then learn from them, not that no mistakes are ever made. I just wouldn't be too pessimistic. I'm more concerned with the rise of people who think they can use some sort of social engineering to make the world perfect than the foibles of our current reality.
- 18y ago

natch 18y ago

Heckofa job, Republicans.

dhimes 18y ago

Notice the authors didn't sign their names to the story. When the US bounces back from this, and I am completely convinced it will, it will have the 'respect of the world' again. As Buffet pointed out with Rose, the US is hacking new frontiers in the advancement of the standard of living. But there are perils in being a pioneer, and the US is working through one now.

qwph 18y ago
> Notice the authors didn't sign their names to the story. That's odd, I had assumed that the list of names at the end of the article were the authors... Beat Balzli, Klaus Brinkbaumer, Frank Hornig, Hans Hoyng, Armin Mahler, Alexander Neubacher, Wolfgang Reuter, Christoph Pauly, Michael Sauga
- dhimes 18y ago
  I believe that you are correct. My mistake.

gills 18y ago

Is Germany one of the nations threatening to stop buying Treasuries if we don't buy back the subprime meatballs?

lst 18y ago

This doesn't surprise me: the highly risky money speculations (all invented in the US) had to come to an end, sooner or later. They did well as long as the US had a continuous growth, but there are now many 'New Americas' out there, which will make there own new way of life. America: sorry, but you're getting old already...

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

cmars232 18y ago

World trade will become irrelevant once we develop our own energy independence and desktop manufacturing. These two technological breakthroughs will render cultural and economic hegemonies irrelevant. The next great economic triumph won't be the victory of any particular country or region. It will be the emergence of distributed and decentralized economic power. That's how I'd like to see it go down, anyhow..

olefoo 18y ago
There wil;l still be resource contention, fresh water for instance.
- DabAsteroid 18y ago
  http://www.google.com/search?q=nuclear+desalination http://www.google.com/search?q=nuclear+desalination