America Not in Decline

[Lemur]

A refreshing essay from Foreign Policy confirms something I've been suspecting for a few years now: The USA is not rolling toward collapse (http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/01/22/predictions_about_the_death_of_american_hegemony_may_have_been_greatly_exaggerated) (although every heavy-breathing pundit will tell you the sky is falling).

1) The United States is successfully deleveraging. As the McKinsey Global Institute notes, the United States is actually doing a relatively good job of slimming down total debt -- i.e., consumer, investor and public debt combined. Sure, public debt has exploded, but as MGI points out, that really is the proper way of doing things after a financial bubble [...]

2) Manufacturing is on the mend. Another positive trend, contra the Harvard Business School and the GOP presidential candidates, is in manufacturing. Some analysts have already predicted a revival in that sector, and now the data appears to be backing up that prediction. [...]

3) A predicted decline in energy insecurity. British Petroleum has issued their Energy Outlook for 2030. The Guardian's Richard Wachman provides a useful summary: Growth in shale oil and gas supplies will make the US virtually self-sufficient in energy by 2030, according to a BP report published on Wednesday. [...]

Since the Second World War, the pattern in the global political economy has been for the United States to adjust to systemic shocks better than any potential challenger country. A lot of very smart people have predicted that this time was different -- the United States wouldn't be able to do it again. These trends suggest that maybe, just maybe, that might be wrong.

Am I missing anything?

[gaelic cowboy]

Are you missing anything hmm, no I would say it is spot on to be honest.

Much of the "Merica in Decline" stuff is overblown, America still has per head of population plenty room to expand on most indicators when taken on a national basis.


You population is predicted to keep increasing, and you land per head is bigger than most.

If you manage your resources properly even unsustainable Las Vegas can continue to grow albeit at a slower pace.

America has ports on both the Atlantic and Pacific giving a flexibility on trade and millitary resources most nations dont have.

American strategy was/is predicated on the need to prevent consolidation of an aggressive power on the central plain of Europe. A Russia, Germany or France that had controlled all Europe and the colonies of the same would have buried the US eventually.

We know that Europe is on the downswing so it merely remains to prevent Russia from being capable of dominating Europe, if Russia owns European manufacturing and warm water ports they can given time can overwhelm the US. However dont worry it's not going to happen for the reason it has never worked namely Ireland, Iceland and the UK unless you control them you will give up control of the Atlantic eventually.

The brief period after 1991 spolied us all really, it seems like the US is declining but really it is just assuming the position it always had.



Also one last peice on this idea of decline is to my mind it's always predicated on the idea of the military.


By this measure todays britain should be a poorer and weaker place that 1880 yes/no well I think we can all agree that todays Britain is richer than 1880 and the millitary far stronger than 1880.

[Furunculus]

nope.

http://www.arbuthnotgroup.com/uploads/9.1.12.pdf
http://www.nber.org/~wbuiter/3G.pdf
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.research.hsbc.com%2Fmidas%2FRes%2FRDV%3Fao%3D20%26key%3Dej73gSSJVj%26n%3D282364 .PDF&rct=j&q=HSBC%20the%20world%20in%202050%20pdf%5D&ei=4813TYTFFYy4hAfppaH-Bg&usg=AFQjCNFz0oZr7CF02AJkNDddtW2HyznvrQ&cad=rja&cad=rja
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/World_Order_in_2050.pdf

[Hax]

Besides, the South Will Rise Again.

(am I doing this right?)

[rory_20_uk]

America is in relative decline compared to, say 25 years ago. America is changing its doctrine of two simultaneous wars to only one.

1) America has tried to keep the increase in living standards by one bubble after the other. Real increases are far more difficult due to increased competition from abroad.

2) That is genuinely great news and if can be kept up will buttress the country in years to come. Any country that fails to create real items is constantly having to watch their backs.

3) Shale gas will probably be a good source of energy, but there is an unknown environmental impact - well, it is known but companies tend to point out tap water that one can light as a bonus.

America isn't going to implode and become a wasteland but a slow adjustment is probably likely as the artificial suppression of China has ended and the latest attempts by Europe to immolate itself are not as great as they were at the start of the last century.

~:smoking:

[Lemur]

America is in relative decline compared to, say 25 years ago.
I don't think 1987 was so fantastic. The advent of Max Headroom and Space: 1999 cannot save an otherwise lackluster year, what with the market crash of '87 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Monday_(1987)).

I keed, I keed. The same trends that are cited for American decline today have their roots in the policies of the late 1970s and 1980s. Energy shocks, offshoring of manufacturing, trade deficits, budget deficits, consumer deficits, deregulation of the financial sector ... all of this was happening in that period. If anything, I believe we have come through the aftershocks of those policies, and are well on our way toward taking the best elements and discarding the dross.

As for military supremacy, America does not need to be the preeminent power of the globe. We can't afford it; no single nation can.* We need to protect our interests, certainly, and we need to defend ourselves, but the gross imperial gambits of Bush II are now rightly seen as a budget-destroying error. The same sort of global overreach that did in the British Empire. I'm not in favor of isolationism, but a re-think of our global policing is no bad thing.

Our best days are ahead of us. I firmly believe this.




* Indeed, there's a good argument to be made that a bloated defense budget not only weakens us economically, but weakens us militarily (http://peterjmunson.blogspot.com/2012/01/arc-of-enterprise.html).

[W]e have new fiefdoms pushing new products and guarding pots of resources that are not integrated with the rest of the force. We have the director of this center of excellence and the commanding general of that command, each with a flashy name and each with a new age explanation as to why we need them in modern warfare. Meanwhile, they pursue programs and supposed solutions in single-minded vigor, guarding and expending resources in a rabbit hole rather than pursuing business and military strategies integrated across functions and time. Look at a professional journal and see who is publishing most of the articles you don't read. Directors and staffs of these agencies are constantly justifying their existence and their pot of money. This, my friends, is the path to hell, decadence, and strategic decline. [...]

While each believes he or she is doing his best to save the world, the rest of us know most of this is a joke. The joke is on us, though, because no one cares to impart discipline on the system that got them to where they are and their interests have been so fully entwined with the interests of the organization and of the nation that there is no discerning them anymore.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdFtUVyvEj8

[Xiahou]

Our best days are ahead of us. I firmly believe this.You're not worried by unsustainable growth in entitlement spending? Or are you just confident someone will have the courage to fix them? I agree that the US has some good fundamentals, but we also face some daunting challenges.

Also, while we can certainly trim the fat on defense, I don't think it's accurate to paint it as "budget destroying". You could completely eliminate defense spending and we'd still be running a healthy deficit. At least defense is one of the enumerated powers of the federal government.

[Lemur]

You're not worried by unsustainable growth in entitlement spending?
One of several concerns, certainly, but I am quite certain that we will address it. I also think the tax code is a joke and a drag on the economy, needing radical simplification. Again, I believe we will address it.

Much less clear on how we will deal with some macro-economic trends, but that's a whole 'nother thread.


Also, while we can certainly trim the fat on defense, I don't think it's accurate to paint it as "budget destroying".
Conflating two separate issues; defense budget and the two off-budget wars we waged in the 00s. I do believe the DoD budgeting and procurement system encourages single-issue, single-program fiefdoms that drain away millions while doing little to help our men and women in uniform. The Iraq war, on the other hand, cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $2 trillion (some estimates go as high as $4 trillion, when factoring indirect costs), which was, in fact "budget-destroying."

[Sasaki Kojiro]

http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1183

(long)

I was going to post this in its own thread but I don't have much more than a recommendation. It fits here well enough because his topic is what needs to happen politically...why we are in a decline only if we think we have to stick with a certain system. Although I think there may be some contradictions with the above article.


Also, here's another article on "the myth of american decline":

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/99521/america-world-power-declinism

[ICantSpellDawg]

America is in a relative decline, not an actual one at this point. It could go that way, but my general understanding of the world is that when your competitors do well, you do better, unless you are a crappy competitor.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I read Sasaki's first link and it was very good all the way up until the end.

NOTE: To understand this, you have to read the article.
Those we call "conservatives" want liberalism 3.0 and those we call "liberals" want liberalism 4.1. But then he just goes on to say at the end that what we need and are ready for is liberalism 5.0. Except if everyone is looking to the past, who is going to create liberalism 5.0? This is why I feel America is declining, or about to decline. No one is looking towards the future, they are just clinging to their old ideas and feelings.

[Lemur]

[W]e are certainly not going to be the top dog in, say, fifty years or so if things keep going the way they are
If there's one thing you can count on, it's that linear trends don't stay linear.


What is in danger of collapse is the US political system
Unfortunately, when you declare all government to be evil, and then set out to prove it, there are unintended consequences.

[PanzerJaeger]

Good thread, and lots of good articles. I guess it depends on how one defines 'decline'. As most of the world embraces some form of free market capitalism, GDP size will be increasingly correlated with population size. Even with her significant legal, regulatory, and technological advantages, America's ~400 million people cannot hope to support an economy the size of the one China's 1.3 billion people can. Feudalism, colonialism, internal strife, outside aggressors, and finally communism artificially held China (and India on many of those counts) back. Falling behind large-population nations on global rankings of the biggest this and the most that is definitely relative and not particularly important.

However, is America being held back, or indeed declining, in real terms? I think Sasaki's first article makes a strong case for that argument. America is clinging to a model built for a different era while other nations are building new, innovative, and more efficient models that correspond more closely to the 21st century. Our private economy is desperately (and in many cases successfully) trying to adapt to to the realities of the emerging global marketplace under the onerous burden of a governmental system stuck in the Great Society.

I really liked this from the article:


But today the words liberal and progressive have been hijacked and turned into their opposites: A “liberal” today is somebody who defends the 20th-century blue social model; a “progressive” is now somebody who thinks history has gone wrong and that we must restore the Iron Triangle of yesteryear to make things better. Most of what passes for liberal and progressive politics these days is a conservative reaction against economic and social changes the Left doesn’t like. The people who call themselves liberal in the United States today are fighting rearguard actions to save old policies and established institutions that once served noble purposes but that now need fundamental reform (and in some cases abolition), lest they thwart the very purposes for which they were created.

I have thought the same for a long time but have not seen it written so succinctly.

At the same time, I think a lot of those hoping to return to the gold standard must acknowledge the following.


We cannot realistically solve our problems by trying to return to the 3.0 liberalism of the 19th century because the American economy of that era depended on conditions we cannot reproduce today. Though some may think it desirable, we cannot return to a largely agrarian economy. Nor can we replicate the industrial system of the 19th century, with its extremely high tariffs against foreign goods and a completely laissez-faire national attitude toward immigration. Trying to recreate the American economy of a century ago would lead to massive dislocations, depressions and quite likely wars around the world, not to mention thoroughly wrecking the American economy and bankrupting many of our banks and biggest corporations.

[a completely inoffensive name]

At the same time, I think a lot of those hoping to return to the gold standard must acknowledge the following.

But....but Ron Paul says we can.

[Papewaio]

You have some of the key energy companies and the key IT companies.
And a huge chunk of the worlds liquid fresh water.

Much better fundamentals then Australia which is essentially a quarry.

[Greyblades]

By this measure todays britain should be a poorer and weaker place that 1880 yes/no well I think we can all agree that todays Britain is richer than 1880 and the millitary far stronger than 1880.

Really? I would have thought that Britain with it's empire would have been (for it's time) considered far stronger than today's army.

[gaelic cowboy]

Really? I would have thought that Britain with it's empire would have been (for it's time) considered far stronger than today's army.

Who cares about "for it's time" it's today we live in, in 1880 most people lived short, dirty and poor lives in the UK

children died younger as did women in childbirth, well over 60-70% of people died before 60yrs of age.

Britains industry depended on tarriffs and raw materials from the colonies, thats no longer the case now it's services both domestic and exported ones in a open market.

Defensively Britain was always under threat at home due to commitments abroad, basically her empire drained millitary resources from the homeplace to protect strategic interests abroad.

Germany/France were the biggest threats when Britain still had an empire, they were able to threaten Britain without having to invade it's empire or Britain.
Britain then had to ensure it's alliances on the continent discouraged too great a single power on the continent, this would give it time to utilise it's colonies to eventually overwhelm an enemy.

Todays britain is better on every box you could want to tick.

[Greyblades]

Oh. I believe said stronger millitary not better way of life, and "for its time" probably does count as a country's strength is usually measured by comparing it to other countries and considering at the time Britain was in the top three then not the top 5 as is now I assume it was stronger then than it is now.

[Vladimir]

Oh. I believe said stronger millitary not better way of life, and "for its time" probably does count as a country's strength is usually measured by comparing it to other countries and considering at the time Britain was in the top three then not the top 5 as is now I assume it was stronger then than it is now.

It may be a problem with context then. I'm inclined to agree with your view but many people are thinking in terms relative to the country itself.

[Greyblades]

Well that's the problem with comparing a country's strength from different ages, most people would think of the roman empire's legions as stronger than the vatican City's Swiss guard, but in a straight fight the huge advances of tech would mean the only way the legions would win was if the guard ran out of bullets before the legion ran out of bodies. It still doesnt mean the Roman empire's armies were less powerful in the world then the swiss guard.
Anyway, it's Off topic.

[PanzerJaeger]

Todays britain is better on every box you could want to tick.

Well, obviously. It would be difficult to find a nation on earth that does not have a better standard of living than it did 100+ years ago, including those in the third world. It is a bit disingenuous to use natural human advancements to gloss over real and/or relative rises and declines.

For Britain, I would argue that it suffered relative declines during the World War periods when larger powers emerged to challenge its supremacy and then real declines after the Second World War as its economic system fell apart. Thatcherism re-aligned the economy with that of the rest of the world and set the stage for an impressive rise (whether it be in relative power or standard of living).

[Greyblades]

Either way it sure isnt powerful enough anymore to force China into buying opium.

[Lemur]

An update on the conspicuous lack of decadence and decline (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/04/29/myth-of-decline-u-s-is-stronger-and-faster-than-anywhere-else.html) in America:

[T]he lows of March 2009 marked the beginning of an unexpected recovery—not the beginning of an era of irreversible stagnation. The U.S. economy went from shrinking at a 6.7 percent annual rate in the first quarter of 2009 to expanding at a 3.8 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter of that year—a turnaround unprecedented in modern history. The stock market has doubled since March 2009, while corporate profits and exports have surged to records. The U.S. economy has regained its 2007 peak, and is now growing at a 3 percent annual clip—a more rapid pace than any other developed economy. The crucible of the recession forged an economic structure that is more resistant to shocks than the brittle vessel that shattered in 2008. Meanwhile, Europe continues to grapple with insoluble banking and sovereign debt crises, and developing-economy juggernauts like China and Brazil are showing signs of cracking.

It’s clear that the story of America’s recovery—unsatisfying and problematic as it has been—isn’t a Hollywood tale. Rather, it rests on an understanding of its core competencies and competitive advantages: attitudes and capabilities that, even in this age of globalization, remain unique. Contrary to the declinists’ view, global growth has not been a zero-sum game for America’s economy. [...]

Rather than sink deeper into a financial morass, the American private sector emerged better: better equipped to meet obligations, to save, to invest, to spend, and, ultimately, to grow. Pretax corporate profits rose from $1.25 trillion in 2008 to $1.8 trillion in 2010, and to $1.94 trillion in 2011. And rather than throw in the towel and surrender to Chinese competitors, U.S. companies figured out how to get more out of existing resources.

[gaelic cowboy]

I wonder if we were to dig up newspapers from the late 40s up to the late 50's would we see people talking about the coming soviet juggernaut. I bet a tenner in Paddy Power they were talking about relative decline then too.

[HopAlongBunny]

The problem 'merica seems to have is it doesn't deal with peace very well. After burying the USSR rather convincingly it essentially squandered the peace.

The US has dealt under a wartime economy for so long it is questionable whether it can deal with peace. Bush dealt with the threat to America's mobilization economy by starting 2 rather foolish wars; one of which can only be described as the most elaborate art heist in history (since that is the only "observable" success of that campaign) The so called peace dividend was made to vapourize in a black-hole of military largesse and welfare for the rich.

The question (for me) is can the US still flourish under a peacetime economy? Is it possible for the US economy to move ahead w/o the welfare system for corporations that is essentially the MIC? Certainly, the political system seems to be dysfunctional w/o a threat looming over them (real or imagined)

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think you're on to something to here.

No he's not.

[Papewaio]

So Apple alone represents 1.5% of the pretax profits for 2011?

I think it's pretty well geared for non warfare based economy.

Likewise Google and Microsoft and Cisco and HP and Dell... Essentially the juggernauts of the information age are US controlled companies. So what if the assembly lines are offshore, look where the quality control, decisions, benefits and cash flow to.

[PanzerJaeger]

The question (for me) is can the US still flourish under a peacetime economy? Is it possible for the US economy to move ahead w/o the welfare system for corporations that is essentially the MIC?

Umm... the US economy moved ahead without significant military spending a long time ago. The MIC comprises just 3.6% of the US economy (as measured by GDP) without the foreign wars and just shy of 5% if that spending is included. Even after the relative boom in military spending that followed 9/11, these are historically low figures for the post-war era.

[HopAlongBunny]

Umm... the US economy moved ahead without significant military spending a long time ago. The MIC comprises just 3.6% of the US economy (as measured by GDP) without the foreign wars and just shy of 5% if that spending is included. Even after the relative boom in military spending that followed 9/11, these are historically low figures for the post-war era.

Like anything else: yes and no. Absolute spending is higher than at the height of the cold war, though it is lower as a % of GDP.

More interesting (to me) is the Government Accountability Office's statement that DoD expenditures are not able to be audited. Really? Is it a budget or a laundromat? If the same statement was made vis. Medicare or Old Age Security, Congress would be purple with rage.

Note too, that although spending as a % of GDP declined in the US, it still dwarfs any other player; or actually any other group of players worth naming. All this with essentially no oversight or accountability, despite being the largest beneficiary of the US budget process.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Like anything else: yes and no. Absolute spending is higher than at the height of the cold war, though it is lower as a % of GDP.
Absolute spending is pretty meaningless. Just looking that the number got bigger could just mean that it kept up with inflation. % of GDP is the only thing that matter when you are trying to make the point that we can't have a "peacetime economy", when clearly we have been getting closer to a peacetime economy in terms of the relative size of the MIC.



More interesting (to me) is the Government Accountability Office's statement that DoD expenditures are not able to be audited. Really? Is it a budget or a laundromat? If the same statement was made vis. Medicare or Old Age Security, Congress would be purple with rage.
Obviously, military spending is going to be on projects that really shouldn't be public knowledge for our enemies to know. This argument doesn't apply to Social Programs, thus we don't see any denials for auditing social programs.



Note too, that although spending as a % of GDP declined in the US, it still dwarfs any other player; or actually any other group of players worth naming. All this with essentially no oversight or accountability, despite being the largest beneficiary of the US budget process.
This is just factually wrong, Medicare/Medicaid was larger than military spending. Social Security by itself was larger than military spending.

If you don't mind me asking, where are you coming up with all this?

[HopAlongBunny]

It depends. Actually finding the answers to your queries has done much to educate me about the Byzantine world of "what counts".

The first bug bear is Social Security; does the author consider it "on budget" or "off budget"? Not a question I even thought to ask initially. The gov't has it "on budget" as of LBJ; critics of this accounting change seem to feel the rationale behind the change was to mask military spending behind a large social expenditure from a self funding program. A program still apparently in surplus, but not for long. So I guess one must ascertain a source's position on this point; as well as questioning whether or not different sources make different assumptions in this regard when calculating "x" as a % of budgetary expenditure.

The second question is: what counts as military spending? Again, different sources count different things. DoD budget alone; Homeland Security?; counter-terrorism expenditures by the FBI? contracting of services to civilian companies for security operations? The difference in "what counts" changes the figure from ~600 billion to over 1 trillion.

So yes, I will have to examine exactly what a source means in terms of "the budget" and "military expenditure"; and will expect no less from others:p

[a completely inoffensive name]

The first bug bear is Social Security; does the author consider it "on budget" or "off budget"? Not a question I even thought to ask initially. The gov't has it "on budget" as of LBJ; critics of this accounting change seem to feel the rationale behind the change was to mask military spending behind a large social expenditure from a self funding program. A program still apparently in surplus, but not for long. So I guess one must ascertain a source's position on this point; as well as questioning whether or not different sources make different assumptions in this regard when calculating "x" as a % of budgetary expenditure.

If you are paying for it, it is on your budget, whether you "write it down" or not. This is not a subject for debate, arguing otherwise would be silly.



The second question is: what counts as military spending? Again, different sources count different things. DoD budget alone; Homeland Security?; counter-terrorism expenditures by the FBI? contracting of services to civilian companies for security operations? The difference in "what counts" changes the figure from ~600 billion to over 1 trillion.

So yes, I will have to examine exactly what a source means in terms of "the budget" and "military expenditure"; and will expect no less from others:p

I don't understand what you are talking about. We know what counts as military spending, the CBO tells us what falls under military spending in the budget. Why don't we actually look up last years budget and give it a good read. It may prove enlightening to some of your questions.

[CountArach]

It has seemed to me for some time that rather than the old adage "All Empires fall", it would be far more apt to say "All Empires think they are falling."

Take for instance Rome; Even before the Republic fell, there are writers like Sallust who hammered on about moral decline and how the old days were better and, when the Republic and later the Empire fell, people nodded sagely and said "Ah yes, our morality has slipped. Such is the way of Empire." Let's face it, nostalgia for an earlier, simpler time is a pretty strong motivator for a great many people and this is just an extension of that. In reality, their morality was not slipping and any person who held that opinion today would be roundly ridiculed. But reality matters little to people who are observing the past looking for evidence of why their perceived present is so poor.

Those Americans who claim that America is 'falling' are just saying what seems obvious to them with their nostalgia-tinted glasses. They are just saying it differently (though people do still hammer on and on about moral decline). In this case they are just putting it within the modern discourse that makes sense to them - they are seeking out statistics and figures that seem to confirm their view, nodding sagely and saying "Ah yes, our economy has slipped. Such is the way of Empire." The statistics don't back them up, but that matters little because it isn't the statistics that are confirming their worldview - it is their view of a past where America was on top of the world.

[Papewaio]

Emergency spending is not part of the POTUS budget...

[ICantSpellDawg]

It has seemed to me for some time that rather than the old adage "All Empires fall", it would be far more apt to say "All Empires think they are falling."

Take for instance Rome; Even before the Republic fell, there are writers like Sallust who hammered on about moral decline and how the old days were better and, when the Republic and later the Empire fell, people nodded sagely and said "Ah yes, our morality has slipped. Such is the way of Empire." Let's face it, nostalgia for an earlier, simpler time is a pretty strong motivator for a great many people and this is just an extension of that. In reality, their morality was not slipping and any person who held that opinion today would be roundly ridiculed. But reality matters little to people who are observing the past looking for evidence of why their perceived present is so poor.

Those Americans who claim that America is 'falling' are just saying what seems obvious to them with their nostalgia-tinted glasses. They are just saying it differently (though people do still hammer on and on about moral decline). In this case they are just putting it within the modern discourse that makes sense to them - they are seeking out statistics and figures that seem to confirm their view, nodding sagely and saying "Ah yes, our economy has slipped. Such is the way of Empire." The statistics don't back them up, but that matters little because it isn't the statistics that are confirming their worldview - it is their view of a past where America was on top of the world.

Fine, so it is all perspective and we actually do not have any insurmountable problems as a nation. I just hope that the pessimism lasts for a few more months, since the U.S. is in such great shape and all and will probably never be in decline, so no real risk. If we can win the narrative in an election year that the country is going to hell in a hand-basket, we win. The administration will be serving up alot of red meat for the voters, it is already almost palpable, so if we just deny him every opportunity at success and it works, we will do well. I personally believe that the Congress serves more of a purpose at this stage in our national development in opposing as many Federal initiatives as possible anyway, so why not hyper-target the ones that the President puts out there which are almost sure to be wrongheaded. If a problem really is big enough, absolute Federal failure to resolve it may cause individuals and States to give it a shot instead of just fawning over a (perceived only, of course) failed Presidency.

[Vladimir]

No he's not.

Agreed. In fact, he's completely wrong. America has always done well under a peace time economy and traditionally been horrible during wartime.

A simple understanding of American history would reveal this.

[gaelic cowboy]

Fine, so it is all perspective and we actually do not have any insurmountable problems as a nation. I just hope that the pessimism lasts for a few more months, since the U.S. is in such great shape and all and will probably never be in decline, so no real risk. If we can win the narrative in an election year that the country is going to hell in a hand-basket, we win. The administration will be serving up alot of red meat for the voters, it is already almost palpable, so if we just deny him every opportunity at success and it works, we will do well. I personally believe that the Congress serves more of a purpose at this stage in our national development in opposing as many Federal initiatives as possible anyway, so why not hyper-target the ones that the President puts out there which are almost sure to be wrongheaded. If a problem really is big enough, absolute Federal failure to resolve it may cause individuals and States to give it a shot instead of just fawning over a (perceived only, of course) failed Presidency.

This is the probably one of the scariest polemic's I have read on the org the use of "WE" in particular is very interesting.

Course if you want a real scare pray your not an SME in Ireland/UK or the wider EU in a few years time


€175m Asian trade hub in Athlone would create up to 1,500 jobs (http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0501/asian-trade-hub-for-athlone-approved.html)


€175m Asian trade hub in Athlone would create up to 1,500 jobs
Updated: 12:04, Tuesday, 1 May 2012

An Bord Pleanála has given the green light to a multi-million euro Asian trade hub for Athlone in Co Westmeath.

In one of the biggest single developments planned in Ireland, the project will be built on a 137-hectare site at Creggan.

The centre, with a price tag of €175m, will promote trade and business between China, Europe and the US.

An estimated 1,500 jobs are expected to be created as part of the project, as well as 1,200 posts during the construction phase.

Planning was granted initially by Westmeath County Council to Athlone Business Park Ltd, the company behind the venture, with 47 conditions.

A statement from the project backers pointed out that "the majority of all of these jobs" will be for Irish/EU nationals. Up to one third of the jobs will be for Chinese specialists and management staff.

Phase one of the international trade and commerce centre will comprise of two exhibition halls, each containing space for 270 concessionaires to display their wares, one hall for visiting exhibitions with space for 135 flexible separate display areas, nine smaller exhibition halls, one administrative building and an entrance concourse.

When completed, it will comprise a total of nine exhibition halls, nine smaller independent exhibition buildings, one temporary exhibitions space, offices, administrative services, some living quarters, hotels, shops, restaurants, pubs, a school and train station.

Financed by a combination of private equity and pre-sales of concession spaces at the centre, backers claim there is potential for 9,000 jobs if the master plan for the centre is fully developed.

The centre is expected to attract a potential €1.5m international buyers and visitors annually when completed.

The International Trade and Commerce Centre will provide showcase/demonstration space for Chinese manufacturers and traders to display their products to European and other international buyers, with a view to generating bulk orders, which will then be delivered from the producers in China.

Export oriented enterprises and products from China, including electric cars, medical devices, fabrics and machinery will be displayed and traded from the centre.

There will be a dedicated cultural space for showcasing Chinese heritage and culture.

The overall master plan for the entire 337-acre site will provide for up to 3,000 companies to display their wares in the nine exhibition halls and other facilities.

There is also potential for Irish goods and products to be showcased at the centre to gain access to the expanding Asian markets.

[CountArach]

Fine, so it is all perspective and we actually do not have any insurmountable problems as a nation. I just hope that the pessimism lasts for a few more months, since the U.S. is in such great shape and all and will probably never be in decline, so no real risk. If we can win the narrative in an election year that the country is going to hell in a hand-basket, we win. The administration will be serving up alot of red meat for the voters, it is already almost palpable, so if we just deny him every opportunity at success and it works, we will do well. I personally believe that the Congress serves more of a purpose at this stage in our national development in opposing as many Federal initiatives as possible anyway, so why not hyper-target the ones that the President puts out there which are almost sure to be wrongheaded. If a problem really is big enough, absolute Federal failure to resolve it may cause individuals and States to give it a shot instead of just fawning over a (perceived only, of course) failed Presidency.
:laugh4:

Decline, as I said, is discursive and by definition it is relative. You are not improving, nor declining, simply changing. Opinions on if this is for the better or for the worse are just that - opinions. My point is not whether those things are good or bad, and you seem to have misunderstood that. my point is that the whole notion of decline (as an historiographical reading of the present relative to the past) is a vaunted idea that has no firm basis in reality. To "read" all of a nation's woes against a narrative of decline is to imbue them with a power that they do not have. We can argue individual policies all we like, but the moment they are emploted against a narrative of decline, then the debate over policy will instead become a debate over the direction of the narrative - a debate that simply deepens the dichotomy between those who think the nation is in decline and those who think that it is not.

[HopAlongBunny]

:laugh4:

To "read" all of a nation's woes against a narrative of decline is to imbue them with a power that they do not have.

And as you go on to point out, it polarizes the discussion. Very useful for political posturing however divorced from reality, and can be repeated endlessly until one is eventually right or dead. The assignment of labels is very useful since who wants to be in a camp perceived as "leading us all to oblivion". Thank you for highlighting an interesting trick of language.

[Furunculus]

Are you missing anything hmm, no I would say it is spot on to be honest.


agreed, america is the archtype of the open and innovative society, therefore it will be among the most adaptable to the challenges that all nations face throughout the course of the timespan.

more adaptable nations have a longer timespan, all other things being equal.

[Vladimir]

agreed, america is the archtype of the open and innovative society, therefore it will be among the most adaptable to the challenges that all nations face throughout the course of the timespan.

more adaptable nations have a longer timespan, all other things being equal.

Really? I thought it was Norway and Canada.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?141243-Tourism-in-dictatorships

[Strike For The South]

I fully expect to have to eat my children. IF I CAN AFFORD TO HAVE THEM

I'm not worried. Our biggest problems are one creditor holding 10% of our doubt and one speculative agency speculating that our speculative credit rating got a little worse.

[Papewaio]

Meh that same creditor needs basic ore and gas from one of your most erstwhile allies.

The creditor is also running a trade deficit with them too, so whilst it could hurt your ally... Your ally could taper off energy exports in favour of Japan and India.

[a completely inoffensive name]

What bothers me the most in threads like these is that no one takes care to make the distinction between a relative failure and an absolute failure.

I disagree with CountArach when he declares that all failures are relative, but agree completely that simply listing all the failures with a serious voice bestows a connotation and inference of an oncoming apocalypse. When we make comparisons between nations on certain points from anything ranging from our amounts of "free speech" to how expansive our internet/broadband penetration's are, we need to check ourselves and ask if we are our finding ourselves lacking in a certain aspect because of a flawed choice that we as a nation through our government's policies have made or because of a systematic incentive/oversight inherently in our structure that we must actively recognize and rout.

This is why I am not worried about China. I am not really worried about the future of gay marriage. These situations that the US finds itself in amounts to nothing more than a football (hand-egg) coach getting flustered over a rival's new defense and slowly figuring out how to work around the problem. They are temporary, and will be relegated to obscure economics and sociology textbooks 100 years from now. China has the upper hand right now? Great, we will see if a totalitarian dictatorship has more flexibility than a liberal democracy. Let's get real here. If there is one thing I learned in Civilization 4, it's that Golden Ages are great....until they end and you find out what the definition of overextended means, and your great expansion is followed by a contraction in every sense including hubris, and Gandhi's AI is threatening to nuke you and Napoleon is holding the only source of uranium on the damn map, refusing to make any trade because heaven forbid you share a border with them which makes you public enemy #1, even though you have been nothing but accommodating to them because in all honesty, they had **** land until they rolled big with the uranium discoveries in the modern age, errr, I got off track here.

Anyway, the real challenges that we must talk about are few and far between, but talking about these red herrings as if America is going to fall soon due to the size of an MIC is just silly. America's main strength has always been a flexibility in the long term partly in due to our large land size, federalist structure, and heterogeneous demographics. The real decline of America will be the absolute failure of removing systems in place that limit or prohibit our use of these such strengths.

I could argue that some of the real systematic problems that we must really talk about when discussing American decline are an overabundance of pride and money in politics. And of course, Sasaki will come in and accuse me of having Judeo-Christian tainted thought and Panzer or Crazed Rabbit will come in to smack me down about the "dangers" of money in our political system. But nevertheless, those are the conversations we should be having, and those are the conversations I try to get involved in and discuss. I jerk around in the gay marriage thread with those I disagree with, but I will gladly discuss the implications of national pride and bragging with Sasaki.

This is a 1AM rant that is probably going to sound really stupid when I wake up, but whatever, I felt like opening my mouth because I can't stand hearing one more person on Facebook cry to everyone "Brb, moving to China or India to get my jobs back. Bye bye America! It was a good 200 years!"

I would have said something about race relations in here as well to placate Strike, but all my information about current US race relations comes from WorldStarHipHop and I like to read multiple biased sources before I run my mouth.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Just wanted to come by here and post this nice looking graph. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/05/14/152671813/50-years-of-government-spending-in-1-graph

I think it puts a nail in the coffin for the argument about the danger of the MIC taking over america's fiscal policies. 51.7% military spending at 18% of GDP in 1962 is 9.3% of GDP going to the military. Today we have 22.6% of 24% of GDP which is 5.424% of GDP going to the military.

So pretty much since the 1960s we have actually seen the MIC shrink by a factor of 1.7.

[Montmorency]

The problem with taking the proportion of GDP is that the economy has grown by more than a factor of 1.7 in the past 50 years.

Thus: Defense spending is higher under Obama than it was under Eisenhower (adjusted for inflation).

Heck, it was higher even under Clinton (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/07/historical_defense_budget.html).

[a completely inoffensive name]

The problem with taking the proportion of GDP is that the economy has grown by more than a factor of 1.7 in the past 50 years.

Thus: Defense spending is higher under Obama than it was under Eisenhower (adjusted for inflation).

Heck, it was higher even under Clinton (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/07/historical_defense_budget.html).

You are correct, because of the economy, the MIC is getting more nowadays relatively than in decades past in terms of "resources" (AKA dollars) when we account for inflation. But I think that that particular point misses what the actual worry over the MIC is about. It isn't so much that the MIC is growing at all, but that it has too much control over the amount of resources it gets from Congress and the White House, that it has the potential to be a runaway spending monster, like conservatives claim about Medicare, SS and the other social welfare programs.

When we have deduced that the MIC has grown not because of government influence and lobbying but because of the strength of our economy, or maybe capitalism in general, it still imo, brings the hammer down on the notion that we will see all of our money going towards R&D for bigger guns in the coming decades. I would think that no one has a problem that our military has been getting bigger because we simply have more resources/capital/(whatever the proper term is) to go around. It would be like complaining about how your significant other continues to buy bigger TV's over the years even though his paycheck has been increasing far beyond the expenses he is putting into having the biggest TV on the block. Unless I am overlooking something completely.

[Montmorency]

~90% growth in spending over a decade is pretty significant.

Also, don't conflate the federal defense budget with the MIC.


I would think that no one has a problem that our military has been getting bigger because we simply have more resources/capital/(whatever the proper term is) to go around.

A very strange thing to say.

The MIC itself, as an interest group, is not in a category separate from agribusiness or Big Oil or the AARP, in terms of influence. The military-loving demographics are much stronger in that. I took issue with your claim that the MIC has shrunk, and that military spending has no potential for "runaway" growth.

[a completely inoffensive name]

~90% growth in spending over a decade is pretty significant.
But not when everything has kept up or surpassed that. My point is that military spending relative to the overall resource allocation in the given time frame has dropped. You have a 6 inch diameter pie and half of it is military. You have an 18 inch diameter pie and 25% of it is military. Yes the second piece of pie is bigger, but it's ratio in respect to the whole pie is a lot smaller, which is what counts when we are talking about the influence of the military lobby not about the size of the military.



Also, don't conflate the federal defense budget with the MIC.
The military budget is at the core of it. Eisenhower shorted the Military-Industrial Complex from the original name he gave it, the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex. Congress is at the heart of it.




A very strange thing to say.
I don't see what is so strange at all.



The MIC itself, as an interest group, is not in a category separate from agribusiness or Big Oil or the AARP, in terms of influence. The military-loving demographics are much stronger in that. I took issue with your claim that the MIC has shrunk, and that military spending has no potential for "runaway" growth.
It has shrunk relative to the overall allocation of Federal spending. Absolute size means nothing when you have already pointed out, that that is due to 50 years of capitalism doing what it does best and not from lobbying.

[Montmorency]

To clarify: I fnd it strange that you consider the expansion of the military budget surrounding the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan a natural result of the growth of the economy. Even stranger, that you believe no one objects to these expenditures.

I never took you for a neo-con, ACIN. :wink:


The military budget is at the core of it. Eisenhower shorted the Military-Industrial Complex from the original name he gave it, the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex. Congress is at the heart of it.

Let's say, a distinction between the federal contracts with Boeing and the salaries of Army personnel, for example.

I think you may have simply clumsily wrded a response to a misinterpretation of my post. As I said, I am not presently interested in the influence of the MIC. Take another look at the last few posts.

[a completely inoffensive name]

To clarify: I fnd it strange that you consider the expansion of the military budget surrounding the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan a natural result of the growth of the economy. Even stranger, that you believe no one objects to these expenditures.
You were the one that brought up the fact about the economy growing to negate my point about % of GDP. I was simply basing my points off of what you said. Obviously, 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq have inflated the military budget. But now as we see Iraq behind us (more or less) and Afghanistan planned out (end of 2014 we are leaving?) I would think that the 10-15 year period post-9/11 is going to be more of an outlier in an otherwise consistent trend of military spending as a % of our GDP continue to decline even as the Federal budget may (or may not) get bigger over the coming years.

Obviously people don't like this outlier, many haven't since the first months after Iraq when we started to have our "oops" realization. But I was mainly referring to the idea that a department of government has grown in size because we have a larger pie to divide up then we did in the past. I don't think that people have a problem with that kind of scenario playing out, because it's really the percentages that matter because the percentages in a budget more or less tell you what the priorities of a country are.



I never took you for a neo-con, ACIN. :wink:
Say it ain't so Monty. :on_crying:




Let's say, a distinction between the federal contracts with Boeing and the salaries of Army personnel, for example.

I think you may have simply clumsily wrded a response to a misinterpretation of my post. As I said, I am not presently interested in the influence of the MIC. Take another look at the last few posts.

I see. We have been talking past each other. Or perhaps, I am talking without reading first. My original point was about the influence of the MIC and how it is overstated using the original chart I posted as proof. You are making a point about the size of it, and you are right in saying it is larger when accounting for inflation and all that today than it was in the past. What I am not picking up from your past posts, is the significance or point behind that statement. If you are not using that fact as a point about the influence of the MIC, where are you going with this information?

[Major Robert Dump]

Very interesting thread. Most of you are wrong.

I can scout property for you guys when I make the Grand Exodus, maybe even keep a room above the garage for Orgahs.