TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Discussion Topic: America's Cultural Downfall
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Discussion Topic: America's Cultural Downfall

Anyone else besides me see the position of the United States similar to the decline of the Roman empire? Discuss here your opinions.

Wow! nice topic! this one could be argue any which way. Personally, I think that America will not collapse the way it is now. However, if the government does not try to change the current situation, they will be facing problem soon!

Re: Discussion Topic: America's Cultural Downfall

quote:

Originally posted by Galapidate Anyone else besides me see the position of the United States similar to the decline of the Roman empire? Discuss here your opinions.

Culturally? Or do you mean as a super power? If anything, I wouldn't equate it with a Romanic collapse, perhaps the decline of the British empire would be a more appropriate trend. Personally I think America will retain super power status however, I see a rise in power of the EU as a new super power.

Re: Re: Discussion Topic: America's Cultural Downfall

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Culturally? Or do you mean as a super power? If anything, I wouldn't equate it with a Romanic collapse, perhaps the decline of the British empire would be a more appropriate trend. Personally I think America will retain super power status however, I see a rise in power of the EU as a new super power.

Hmm, well I guess both ways, since culturally and politically it is on the decline.

well, something is bound to happen eventually, but i think america as an empire will only last another 25 to 50 years.

Sooner or later it must fall, as anything in nature...

But although I don't see the american decline happening anytime soon, I'd say America will not be the only superpower in the following years though. I'd say it'll be a sort of tripolar world, with the US, the EU+Russia and China as the main superpowers, and a few relatively weak independent powers (like India ).

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 ... and a few relatively weak independent powers (like India ).

and Israel

Americas power during the 20th century occurred because of its overwhelming dominance in agriculture and more importantly manufacturing. These enabled the country to become the worlds richest. The USA supplanted the British Empire as the top dog after WW1 and WW2 because the British Empire was bankrupted from fighting the wars whereas the USA was enriched by providing the loans and equipment to fight the wars.

Almost every major war sees a shift in economic power and this war on terror which america will not win (coupled with the madman economic policies of the Government and the complacency of the population) will ensure that america is bankrupted and its role will taken by another power.

What is america powerful in, its military. Thats it. A military it cant afford.

Its a service sector economy which has by and large had its manufacturing industry stripped and those jobs (and workers who pay taxes)will never ever come back.

Its a economy whose assets are grossly overvalued on standard valuation methods

Its an economy which is hopelessly indebted propped up by foreigners. When the foreign investers finally bail out of US assets and stop buying US treasuries whose going to pay for all those aircraft carriers and armored divisions.

Its not a matter of if, but when. There will be a major crash on the US stockmarkets. Of that I have no doubt, the only thing I dont know is when. The United States is headed for a major economic disaster which is unravelling even now.

The root cause of the collapse of Empires(not that the US is an empire) isnt military defeat its bankruptcy.

This site has lots of useful statistics on the US economy, which I havent found any direct flaws in (except for his admiration for Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman and all things old school conservative)

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/

Ah Rupert, the consumate doom and gloom economist. Since when has the manufacturing industry been stripped? The trend in industrial production has been increasing since at least as far back as 1993 ... dramatically so even, both the durable goods industry and the non-durable goods industry combined are larger than the services industry, and I'm pretty sure that regardless of whatever graph I post it's not going to change your mind ... so I'll stop posting economic figures. The real driving force behind the American economy is consumer spending ... so unless Americans have forgotten how to spend money (unlikely), unemployment is shooting through the roof (not happening), personal income levels are flooring (not happening), inflation/deflation are coming (unlikely with the rise in the core CPI released today), I would say we're going to be around a little while longer.

Edit: Oh and by the by, I went to that site and tried verifying the first peice of economic data I could find ... in 2002 government spending as a percent of national income is 23%. I have no idea how this guy got his figures of + 40%, I simply did government spending in 2002 and divided that by national income like the graph stated. I tried looking for outside sources and nearly all his links are referencing his own web page!

quote:

the consumate doom and gloom economist.

I would say I am a realist

quote:

The real driving force behind the American economy is consumer spending ... so unless Americans have forgotten how to spend money

And that is my point, the economy is driven by consumer spending. And that consumer spending is driven by debt and that debt is ever increasing paid for by foreigners. The debt cant go on forever because the foreigners wont keep buying the US assets when the value of the dollar goes down (which it will because US assets are overvalued) This latest stock market rally is folly in the extreme, the last time I looked the S and P 500 PE Ratio (one measure of stock valuations) was 30 times earnings, the historical average for the S and P is from recollection 16 times earnings which means the only way for the stockmarket to go is down. That is an utter inevitability.

I cited Hodges webpage because he is an old school conservative and since every on this site is conservative (by my definition) I thought it better to convey the debt message( and its impact on the USA) but yes admittedly the site is caveat emptor.

A much better site for analysis on the USA but non-conservative site is:

www.levy.org

I found this article on EbscoHost, it isnt on the internet so I have had to excerpt in full it is by James Galbraith in May/June issue of Dollars and Sense. He sythesises everything I have tried to say with regards to the debt issue and how it threatens the USA( and unfortunately the global economy)

Contents

THE UNITED STATES AS A DEBTOR NATION


A falling dollar could mean the end of U.S. world economic domination.
Today, the U.S. dollar is the world's reserve currency. Nations around the world invest most of their foreign exchange reserves in dollar assets. The international economic position of the United States depends on this.
So long as foreign central banks and international investors are willing to take and hold U.S. assets (including stocks, bonds, and cash) this system works--and shamefully to the interest of Americans. Their demand keeps the value of the dollar high. This means that we have been able to consume comfortably, and in exchange for very little effort, the products of hard labor by poor people. (As the supplier of liquidity to the world system, our situation is akin to that of, say, Australia in the late 19th century when gold fields were discovered, except that, in our case, no actual effort is required to extract the gold.) And meanwhile (thanks to ample cheap imports), we are not obliged to invest unduly in maintaining our own industrial base, which has substantially eroded since the 1970s. We could afford to splurge on new technologies and telecommunications systems whose benefits were, to a very great extent, figments of the imagination. And even when the bubble burst in those sectors, life went on, for most Americans, substantially undisturbed--at least for now.
But for how long can this system endure? There can be no definitive answer; the few economists who have worried about this issue are far from being in agreement. On one side, it is argued that the dominant currency holds a "lock-in advantage"; that is, there are economies (reduced transaction costs and reduced risk) associated with keeping all reserves in one basket. The
United States in particular is in a strong position to pressure foreign central banks--notably Japan's--to absorb the dollars that private parties may not wish to hold, at least within limits.
Furthermore, oil is bought and sold in dollars. As a result, oil importers must buy dollars in order to buy oil, and oil exporters accumulate dollars as they sell oil. To some extent this arrangement further strengthens the dollar--though it is not obvious why it requires anyone to hold dollars for very long, once they start falling in value.
Against this, the question remains: As the U.S. trade position continues to erode, will foreigners be willing to add to their holdings of dollar assets by enough to allow the United States to return to full employment? The amount to be absorbed at present--the trade deficit at full employment-is in the range of half a trillion dollars per year. This was easily handled when dollar asset prices were rising. But now that these prices are Jailing, they are not as attractive as they once were. If foreigners are not willing to absorb all the dollars we need to place, and if asset prices do not quickly fall to the point where U.S. stocks appear cheap to investors, dollar dumping is, sooner or later, inevitable.
To keep the dollar's fall from getting out of hand, the United States will be strongly tempted to slow the rate at which new U.S. assets reach the world system, by restricting its imports. Having renounced the traditional tools of trade protectionism, it can only do this by raising interest rates, holding down economic growth, and keeping incomes, and therefore imports, well below the full-employment level. In that situation--which may actually already have arrived--the United States joins Brazil and other developing nations as a country effectively constrained by its debts. Indeed, the world prognosis from that point forward becomes grim, since high levels of American demand have been just about the only motor of growth and development (outside, perhaps, of China and India) in recent years.
THE UNITED STATES AS A DEBTOR NATION
There are economists who advocate dollar devaluation, believing that the richer countries of the world would quickly rally to purchase increasing quantities of made-in-America exports, thus reversing the manufacturing decline of the past 20 years. But this is very unlikely. Exports to the rich regions may not be very price-sensitive.
And exports to the developing regions are very sensitive to income and credit conditions, which would get worse. At least in the short and medium term, there is no foolproof adjustment process to be had by these means. Where a high dollar provides U.S. consumers with cheap imports and capital inflows to finance domestic activity, a falling dollar would have opposite effects. A falling dollar would raise the price of imports into the United States, especially from the richer countries. Meanwhile, a declining dollar would hit at the value of developing countries' reserves and their access to credit, and so it would diminish their demand for our exports. (It would help, in some cases, on their debts.) The most likely outcome from dollar devaluation is a general deepening of the world slump, combined with pressure on American banks and markets as global investors seek safer havens in Europe.
This specter of financial vulnerability means that for the United States, the combination of falling internal demand, falling asset prices, and a falling dollar represents a threat that can best be described as millennial. (My colleague Randall Wray has called it the "perfect fiscal storm.") The consequences at home would include deepening unemployment. There would be little recovery of privately financed investment, amid a continued unraveling of plans--both corporate and personal--that had been based on the delirious stock market valuations of the late 1990s. The center of the world banking industry would move, presumably to continental Europe. Over time, the United States could lose both its position as the principal beneficiary of the world financial order and its margin of maneuver on the domestic scene. This would be not unlike what happened to the United Kingdom from 1914 to 1950.
It is not obvious that senior financial policymakers in the United States have yet grasped this threat, or that there is any serious planning under way to cope with it--apart from a simpleminded view among certain strategic thinkers about the financial advantages of the control of oil. Instead it appears that the responsible officials are confining themselves to a very narrow range of Third-World debt management proposals, whose premises minimize the gravity of the issue and whose purpose is to keep the existing bonds of debt peonage in place as long as possible.
The alternative? It would involve rebuilding a multilateral monetary system, demolished for the benefit of the private commercial banks in 1973. The way forward would probably entail new regional systems of financial stabilization and capital control, such as the Asian Monetary Fund proposed by Japan in 1997. Such a course would be unpalatable to current American leadership. But we may find, down the road, that for the sake of our own prosperity, let alone that of the rest of the world, there is no other way.
Adapted from "The Brazilian Swindle and The Larger International Monetary Problem," published by the Levy Economics Institute in 2002. The full

Rupert, I will concede that a growing trade deficit and national debt could cause significant problems if it goes unchecked for years to come. However, I sincerely doubt you would see a massive decrease of the foreign exchange reserves in any one time. Furthermore public debt as a percent of GDP are at levels and even lower than levels in most of Europe. Stock markets around the world ALL have high PE ratios (just look at asian markets) and even the london has a PE ratio of around 20. Furthermore, national debt as a percent of GDP are still at sustainable levels as compared with past years. Additionally, the trade deficit has begun to decrease this past month as a result of the dollar's depreciation. So in conclusion, am I saying there's nothign to worry about when taking hte debt into consideration ... absolutely not. However, the national debt will be addressed at a time before its ramifications become too costly.

Could this recent downturn simply be caused by cyclical economic phenomena, worsened somewhat by recent world events? I'm no economist but I am an optimist.

quote:

Originally posted by zarathustra Could this recent downturn simply be caused by cyclical economic phenomena, worsened somewhat by recent world events? I'm no economist but I am an optimist.

The business cycle? I think so. Capital flight has simply not occured nor do I think the conditions warrant it happening in the near future.

Is Better Economy Ahead? Key Gauge Up
Thu June 19, 2003 10:43 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A key U.S. economic forecasting gauge posted its largest increase in a year and a half in May, pointing to a possible recovery after months of timid growth in the world's largest economy, a private research firm said on Thursday.
The Conference Board said the index of leading economic indicators rose 1.0 percent in May, above expectations of Wall Street economists who had forecast it to rise 0.6 percent.

In April, the index rose only 0.1 percent as the U.S. economy continued to battle a slowdown brought about by the Sept. 11, 2001 air attacks on the U.S., corporate scandals and fears surrounding the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

"The Leading Economic Index finally points to a recovery almost a year and a half after the end of the recession," the board's chief economist Ken Goldstein said in a statement.

"But dangers present in the first five months of the year have not disappeared completely. Chief among them is a lack of business confidence."

While timing for a recovery in business investment, on which hinges much of the economy's recovery, is still undetermined, the conditions for a pick-up are in place, according to Salomon Smith Barney analyst Christopher Wiegand.

"We are starting to see a pickup in demand, a drop in the cost of capital and the new tax incentives will also definitely help," he said. "But the timing remains somewhat uncertain."

Businesses have not been investing as much as before the economic slump. Economists believe that if companies invested more, the economy would greatly benefit from higher rates of productivity growth and a more solid labor sector as firms would create more jobs.

The coincident index rose 0.1 percent in May after being flat the previous month.

The lagging index, a measure of past trends in the economy, fell 0.1 percent in May after a 0.4 percent drop in April.

Hey Occrider--

unemployment #'s came in today better than expected! Still over 400K in initial unemployment claims though. That makes 15 straight weeks over 400K. Perhaps the economy is just normalizing at a higher level of unemployment after the greed and bubble environment of the late 90's. I maintain that we're in a cyclical bull market within a secular bear market. Rupert makes some good points though they're rather dire, while you make some excellent points, though potentially a bit optimistic. Who knows though, you may both be right for all I know.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Hey Occrider-- unemployment #'s came in today better than expected! Still over 400K in initial unemployment claims though. That makes 15 straight weeks over 400K. Perhaps the economy is just normalizing at a higher level of unemployment after the greed and bubble environment of the late 90's. I maintain that we're in a cyclical bull market within a secular bear market. Rupert makes some good points though they're rather dire, while you make some excellent points, though potentially a bit optimistic. Who knows though, you may both be right for all I know.

Well I agree with rupert in the long term ... if the debt level isn't addressed I think there could potentially be a severe economic repurcussions. However, I think if it were to occur, capital flight would flock to China or the Asian markets rather than Europe. Europe isn't doing too well right now. At any rate, it's true that the labor force is still contracting, however, like the article said, I think that conditions are right for a rebound as long as Business confidence returns and companies begin to reinvest in capital. Interest rates are so low, they have to begin reinvesting!

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well I agree with rupert in the long term ... if the debt level isn't addressed I think there could potentially be a severe economic repurcussions. However, I think if it were to occur, capital flight would flock to China or the Asian markets rather than Europe. Europe isn't doing too well right now. At any rate, it's true that the labor force is still contracting, however, like the article said, I think that conditions are right for a rebound as long as Business confidence returns and companies begin to reinvest in capital. Interest rates are so low, they have to begin reinvesting!

You're right about interest rates--but so far 12 interest rate cuts have been pretty ineffective in stimulating investment, they've only served to stave off a more severe recession. What's worse, when they cut rates next week, which is all but a certainty, the money market industry will be roiled. I agree though, at some point businesses have to invest, but if there is no end demand for stupid gadgets like camera phones and the replacement cycle for PC's continues to be sluggish, you end up with the growth companies still sitting on inventories with little reason to invest in anything new. There have been a few encouraging sins, however, which is at least a bit comforting. I'd love the economy to pick up and the market to run (god knows my 401K needs it!), but I only want it to happen if it's based on strong underlying fundamentals and not some head fake that ends up collapsing on itself, which is what I believe the current rally will probably end up doing if the Fed decides to quit pumping liquidity into the market or simply runs out of ammo.

If anyone is interested these provide useful context material.

http://www.financialsense.com/trans...draWithCRB4.pdf

Is a glossy chart outlining the historical effect of the Kondratieff wave. Kondratieff was a Russian economist who assessed that economies go up and down in long term cycles. We are now in the bottom of the Kondratieff cycle. The last bottom of a Kondratieff cycle was in the 1930's. Kondratieff also believed that major outbreaks of hostility are tied to these cycles, ie wars start or are more likely to start during the troughs and not the peaks of the cycle.

The theory of long term economic cycles doesnt hold much favour nowadays but I think it has a great deal of validity.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft...df/chapter2.pdf

A study of what happens when asset bubbles burst (ie the stock market crash)

I also have a reference to another study done in 2001 tracking in detail long term changes of US stock prices which if its assessment is true would indicate that the S and P 500 has a long way yet to fall. The document is on my work computer and I cant remember its title but I can get it next week.

putting all the economics aside for a moment, I'm just wondering how everyone here thinks the US decline will come to be? Since every nation, empire, etc. will eventually have their time.. would this one come suddenly or gradually .. ? and how/why ?

(ps. i'll have to read all the economic data some other time since i just finished a course on it last semester and it's the last thing i wanna see right now!)

I think it'll come to a decline when more money is spent on reality TV and pop music than the military

quote:

Originally posted by dEsidEL putting all the economics aside for a moment, I'm just wondering how everyone here thinks the US decline will come to be? Since every nation, empire, etc. will eventually have their time.. would this one come suddenly or gradually .. ? and how/why ?

Well, I think that in this day and age, a fall like Rome or Greece will not occur. There are many economic safegaurds in aplce, and the fact that we elect a new president every four years ensures that politic will no completely fail. For a superpower like the US to fall is kinda inconcievable. Maybe it's because we ARE so powerful that it seems like it could never happen.

As for a cultural downfall, I can see that happening. But that would require another post by itself.

lemme guess, you'll start that post

quote:

Originally posted by Galapidate lemme guess, you'll start that post

I will...soon!

quote:

Originally posted by DrummeRaver86 Well, I think that in this day and age, a fall like Rome or Greece will not occur. There are many economic safegaurds in aplce, and the fact that we elect a new president every four years ensures that politic will no completely fail. For a superpower like the US to fall is kinda inconcievable. Maybe it's because we ARE so powerful that it seems like it could never happen. As for a cultural downfall, I can see that happening. But that would require another post by itself.

wells i know what you mean .. but nonetheless, would you agree that the US has only been the sole superpower for maybe the last 15 years or so .. ? I don't think its decline would come so suddenly like the fall of Rome or Greece, which actually wasn't that sudden if you think of it. But yea I'd say it's pretty inconceivable at this point, however they've only been on top for so long. I'm sure at the height of Rome's power, one would have probably said the same at that time.. ?

Hmm, if it were to fall, I'd say it would happen this way:

First the EU should gain superpower status which is near that of the US.

Now, if that happens the world economy will no longer be dependent on the dollar, but other currencies, mainly euro, would become equally acceptable. That would hurt the US economy, and in turn make it a less appealing place to live in. Since a large majority of US scientists are foreigners, and mainly of european descent, that development of situation would cause major scientists to want to live in the EU instead of the US. That would make the US lose its technological advance over the rest of the world. The only thing that would remain would be a large army, which would gradually be reduced, due to its expenses. As time goes by, a new generation of uneducated and largely uncapable americans would take the lead of the country, which would ensure its further decline. America would then become dependant upon agricultural exports, as it would loose its supremacy in all other areas. Now, since midwest is the primary source of wheat for america, it would gain much importance. The american capital would eventually move to the bible belt, and more and more radical christian leaders would get in power. Tensions would grow high, and eventually radical christians would incite a revolution, which would result in a newly established theocracy. Those major corporations that still were in the US would immediately retreat to other countries, mainly the new superpowers like the EU, Russia, or China. The arab world would in the meanwhile enter a new reign of prosperity, as american support of radical regimes would disappear, and people would overthrow islamists and dictators. Arab countries would unite to form a new country, the Union of Arabic States (UAS). Some of the US companies would retreat to that area as well, since the opressive religious regime in the US would not allow them to function normally. That would result in a radical decline of funds, and soon wheat exports would not be enough for the american economy to sustain itself. Farmers would largely resort to the opium plantations instead, as wheat farms would not generate enough money to sustain their large christian families. Also, a growing anger would spur in people, an anger which the radical clerics would direct against the EU and the UAS as the main source of evil. A new wave of anti-muslim sentiment would arise, and the masses would want to get rid of arabic influence over the american christian lands. A new radical terrorist organisation, called PNAC (Project for the New American Century) would rise out of the anonimity, and would start attacking european and arabic targets worldwide. In the meanwhile, the rest of the world would be astounded by the barbarian behaviour of the PNAC, like destroying centuries old statues of 4 american presidents in South Dakota, largest presidential statues in the world. Anyway, after some major terrorist attacks, the EU, the UAS, Russia, and China would enter a coallition and attack the US. The US army would no longer present a problem, as their nuclear weapons became unusable due to lack of maintainance. Soon, after a quick war, the US would be split into 4 sectors, the Alascan sector (Russia), the Western sector (China), the Southeastern sector (UAS) and the Northwestern sector (EU). Soon, those sectors would officially become territories of the new superpowers, and the name USA would no longer exist in history books.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Hmm, if it were to fall, I'd say it would happen this way: First the EU should gain superpower status which is near that of the US. Now, if that happens the world economy will no longer be dependent on the dollar, but other currencies, mainly euro, would become equally acceptable. That would hurt the US economy, and in turn make it a less appealing place to live in. Since a large majority of US scientists are foreigners, and mainly of european descent, that development of situation would cause major scientists to want to live in the EU instead of the US. That would make the US lose its technological advance over the rest of the world. The only thing that would remain would be a large army, which would gradually be reduced, due to its expenses. As time goes by, a new generation of uneducated and largely uncapable americans would take the lead of the country, which would ensure its further decline. America would then become dependant upon agricultural exports, as it would loose its supremacy in all other areas. Now, since midwest is the primary source of wheat for america, it would gain much importance. The american capital would eventually move to the bible belt, and more and more radical christian leaders would get in power. Tensions would grow high, and eventually radical christians would incite a revolution, which would result in a newly established theocracy. Those major corporations that still were in the US would immediately retreat to other countries, mainly the new superpowers like the EU, Russia, or China. The arab world would in the meanwhile enter a new reign of prosperity, as american support of radical regimes would disappear, and people would overthrow islamists and dictators. Arab countries would unite to form a new country, the Union of Arabic States (UAS). Some of the US companies would retreat to that area as well, since the opressive religious regime in the US would not allow them to function normally. That would result in a radical decline of funds, and soon wheat exports would not be enough for the american economy to sustain itself. Farmers would largely resort to the opium plantations instead, as wheat farms would not generate enough money to sustain their large christian families. Also, a growing anger would spur in people, an anger which the radical clerics would direct against the EU and the UAS as the main source of evil. A new wave of anti-muslim sentiment would arise, and the masses would want to get rid of arabic influence over the american christian lands. A new radical terrorist organisation, called PNAC (Project for the New American Century) would rise out of the anonimity, and would start attacking european and arabic targets worldwide. In the meanwhile, the rest of the world would be astounded by the barbarian behaviour of the PNAC, like destroying centuries old statues of 4 american presidents in South Dakota, largest presidential statues in the world. Anyway, after some major terrorist attacks, the EU, the UAS, Russia, and China would enter a coallition and attack the US. The US army would no longer present a problem, as their nuclear weapons became unusable due to lack of maintainance. Soon, after a quick war, the US would be split into 4 sectors, the Alascan sector (Russia), the Western sector (China), the Southeastern sector (UAS) and the Northwestern sector (EU). Soon, those sectors would officially become territories of the new superpowers, and the name USA would no longer exist in history books.

I think so too

But I think that if US loses their economic power they will use all their military power to destroy the world. So what we now can see is actually the end of mankind...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.