The end of the American empire?

[metropolis]

The dollar is about to lose its place as the international currency, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is as good as lost and Chicago lost the 2016 Olympics to Rio. Is this the end of the American empire?

 

[Jm0311]

:stupid:

 

[metropolis]

Come on guys, show some enthusiasm! Patriotism aside, this could be an interesting discussion - America's influence in the world and the new role of emerging economies (e.g. China).

 

[Ian Curtis]

Why do you think there is an American empire?

 

[HughJass]

does this mean no more Larabars? specifically the pecan pie one?



f*ckin hope not

 

[Cassin]

I for one welcome our Rio de Janeiro over lords.

 

[The Gardener]

The dollar is about to lose its place as the international currency, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is as good as lost and Chicago lost the 2016 Olympics to Rio. Is this the end of the American empire?

MY take:

It's what I would characterize it as being "the beginning of the end".

I don't think the olympic bid loss means very much. But, the role of the dollar, the wars, and the gradual realization that our banking system is out of capital and going underwater further by the day are some serious indications of terminal decline. And unless we somehow magically start creating a trade surplus with the rest of the world (i.e. end our economically crippling dependence on imported oil), that capital will not return. Ever.

America's influence in the world and the new role of emerging economies (e.g. China).

China's going down with us. Their financial condition is just as bad, if not worse than ours. They've been operating on the same shell game that we have... in fact, its probably worse. Here's a good piece on that topic:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot. ... ok-at.html

People talk of this myth of Chinese being rich. Well, they DO own a couple trillion in American debt, and have significant other reserves, but on a global scale these amounts are paltry sums.

So.... after the US steps down, I don't see anyone else with the economic, political, or military heft to step in and fill the breach. Especially considering the deteriorating condition of global finances... we are already seeing protectionism and currency battles. It will be every nation for itself, as it was during the last depression. And because of this, I don't forsee China, a net exporter with precious few natural resources outside of cheap labor, emerging as the new global hegemon. Instead, I'm afraid we're going to enter a dark ages type period, similar to after the fall of Rome. Global trade will fall off the deep end. In fact, it pretty much already has. Historically, periods like this have portended world war as global cooperation and integration are replaced with bitter struggles to maintain economic integrity, privelidged access to natural resources, and survival.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that China will NEVER be a great power of a nation, or perhaps even a global hegemon. It very well might turn into one. But, it won't be as a result of this crisis, or occur anytime in the forseeable future. You can't take a country with close to zilch in natural resources, and has a business model that relies on exports, and come out ahead. The only way they were able to make the reserves they have was through a labor arbitrage play by exporting to wealthier countries. Once that arbitrage play goes away, the clothes come off the emporer.

Russia might be a more natural possibility given the balanced makeup of their economy, but their demographic problems are so acute that I don't see them taking the reins either. Europe could as well, but not until they make some significant strides in more seamless economic integration, which, I'm not sure would be politically palatable given the tribal nature of the various European national governments. Lastly, if the US were to end its addiction to imported oil, or at least bring it down to a level where the net import cost no longer totally offsets all of the export wealth we create, the US might have another shot at it. I don't think it's physically possible, barring something extroardinary such as getting cold fusion to work, as an example.

I think the two thousand pound gorilla in the room is the Arab world. I mean, if I were to take a Martian that has a clean slate of a mind unbiased by earthly prejudices and history, and suddenly show him the current economic field of play in the world, and then ask him "who do you think will end up rising into a hegemonic position as a result of this?", the Martian would probably say "The Arabs... and blatantly OBVIOUSLY so!" They've got posession of a dominating portion of the most strategic natural resource on earth, they have extremely favorable demographic trends, and if they were to all get their acts together and unite, they have a decently diverse and balanced economy. I think the Anglo Saxons recognize this, and this is the impetus behind the US and UK keeping their thumbs on them by keeping them separated, and under the rule of Western-friendly authoritarian figures. So... I don't forsee that happening either. Then again, you can't take the World War Three scenario off the table....

And, that's my take.

 

[ali777]

All that talk about America losing power is premature.

IMO, if the EU can keep it together, the EU could be the real power of the future. The only problem is, the EU isn't as united as it should be.

I think the two thousand pound gorilla in the room is the Arab world. I mean, if I were to take a Martian that has a clean slate of a mind unbiased by earthly prejudices and history, and suddenly show him the current economic field of play in the world, and then ask him "who do you think will end up rising into a hegemonic position as a result of this?", the Martian would probably say "The Arabs... and blatantly OBVIOUSLY so!" They've got posession of a dominating portion of the most strategic natural resource on earth, they have extremely favorable demographic trends, and if they were to all get their acts together and unite, they have a decently diverse and balanced economy. I think the Anglo Saxons recognize this, and this is the impetus behind the US and UK keeping their thumbs on them by keeping them separated, and under the rule of Western-friendly authoritarian figures. So... I don't forsee that happening either. Then again, you can't take the World War Three scenario off the table....

And, that's my take.

Nah... If there is an Arab reading this, I would like to appologise in advance!!!

The Arabs just don't have the X factor, whatever the X factor is.

I remember reading in one of the British newspapers that the the whole Arabic world doesn't publish as many books as the Turks do. Considering the fact that Turks are the poor man of Europe and that there are 4-5 times as many Arabs as Turks, the Arabs are even worse.

If the future depended on controlling the oil resources only, the Arabs could be the next big power. But we live in the information era, and the Arabs are far far behind in that race.

For the Arabs to be successful, they have to get rid off some of their backward ideologies and learn how to apply reason and logic in their lives. That would take a serious amount of education and possibly at least 2-3 generations. Would the petrol last 2-3 generations?

 

[Leon S Habsburg]

Bear in mind that the Roman empire took centuries to decline, they pulled out of UK around 400AD and there decline continued onwards until the byzantine empire, which the Roman empire morphed in too when they got conquered by German barbarians (germanic tribes)...the byzantine empire ended around 1300s

Everything seems to happen quicker these days, but I agree that American empire has started it's decline. I think it will be the last great Empire of the ages, after this everything will be on a global level.

While in the past change happens very slowly, change now happens alot quicker. By the time we are all OAPs the world will be unrecognisable compared to today.

 

[somone uk]

We're all living in America,
America is wunderbar.
We're all living in America,
Amerika, Amerika. :whistle:

 

[Cassin]

I think the two thousand pound gorilla in the room is the Arab world. I mean, if I were to take a Martian that has a clean slate of a mind unbiased by earthly prejudices and history, and suddenly show him the current economic field of play in the world, and then ask him "who do you think will end up rising into a hegemonic position as a result of this?", the Martian would probably say "The Arabs... and blatantly OBVIOUSLY so!" They've got posession of a dominating portion of the most strategic natural resource on earth, they have extremely favorable demographic trends, and if they were to all get their acts together and unite, they have a decently diverse and balanced economy. I think the Anglo Saxons recognize this, and this is the impetus behind the US and UK keeping their thumbs on them by keeping them separated, and under the rule of Western-friendly authoritarian figures. So... I don't forsee that happening either. Then again, you can't take the World War Three scenario off the table.....

how much of their wealth do the reinvest back into their infrastructure? They have a stone age mentality.

 

[ali777]

how much of their wealth do the reinvest back into their infrastructure? They have a stone age mentality.

Well, they actually invest a lot in the infrastructure. From what I have seen and read, The Gulf looks rather posh.

I think their problem is with the type of investment they make. Their investments are all tangible products. They buy shares in English football clubs, the City group, etc but I don't think they invest enough in people, ie social reforms and education.

I do agree socially they are not compatible with the West. Despite being part of the UN, they have a problem with UN's declaration of human rights. They propose having an alternative to the UN's declaration, something like Islamic human rights, which in essence goes against the human rights by discriminating itself from the rest of the world.

 

[metropolis]

If I have to choose the next world superpower, I vote for Europe. We are way ahead of everyone else in renewable energies and, despite our internal divisions and huge bureaucracy problems, the EU, the Euro and the Lisbon Treaty are unquestionably a success.

(I only wish they would allow Turkey to join the club but Germany is totally against it, they feel they have enough Turks already)

 

[The Gardener]

Europe is great, but...

I'd get rid of the EU and start fresh with a new institution. The current EU institution is a cabal of corrupt crooks, and as time goes by this will slowly start to percolate into the public's realization, if it hasn't already.

I'd suggest tearing it up and starting fresh with a new "EU", and in doing so you can learn from the mistakes made by the current institution.

 

[Cassin]

how much of their wealth do the reinvest back into their infrastructure? They have a stone age mentality.

Well, they actually invest a lot in the infrastructure. From what I have seen and read, The Gulf looks rather posh.

I think their problem is with the type of investment they make. Their investments are all tangible products. They buy shares in English football clubs, the City group, etc but I don't think they invest enough in people, ie social reforms and education.

I do agree socially they are not compatible with the West. Despite being part of the UN, they have a problem with UN's declaration of human rights. They propose having an alternative to the UN's declaration, something like Islamic human rights, which in essence goes against the human rights by discriminating itself from the rest of the world.

not even close to enough considering the wealth...

****************************************************


Saudis ask for aid if world cuts dependence on oil

BANGKOK — There are plenty of needy countries at the U.N. climate talks in Bangkok that make the case they need financial assistance to adapt to the impacts of global warming. Then there are the Saudis.

Saudi Arabia has led a quiet campaign during these and other negotiations — demanding behind closed doors that oil-producing nations get special financial assistance if a new climate pact calls for substantial reductions in the use of fossil fuels.

That campaign comes despite an International Energy Agency report released this week showing that OPEC revenues would still increase $23 trillion between 2008 and 2030 — a fourfold increase compared to the period from 1985 to 2007 — if countries agree to significantly slash emissions and thereby cut their use of oil. That is the limit most countries agree is needed to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

The head of the Saudi delegation Mohammad S. Al Sabban dismissed the IEA figures as “biased†and said OPEC's own calculations showed that Saudi Arabia would lose $19 billion a year starting in 2012 under a new climate pact. The region would lose much more, he said.

“We are among the economically vulnerable countries,†Al Sabban told The Associated Press on the sidelines of the talks ahead of negotiations in Copenhagen in December for a treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

“This is very serious for us,†he continued. “We are in the process of diversifying our economy but this will take a long time. We don't have too many resources.â€

Saudi Arabia, which sits atop the world's largest proven oil reserves, is seeing economic growth slide because of fallout from the global meltdown, but experts still expect the country, flush with cash from oil's earlier price spike last year, to be better able than other nations to cope with the current crisis.
Al Sabban accused Western nations of pursuing an agenda against oil producers, under the guise of protecting the planet.

“Many politicians in the Western world think these climate change negotiations and the new agreement will provide them with a golden opportunity to reduce their dependence on imported oil,†Al Sabban said. “That means you will transfer the burden to developing countries, especially to those highly dependent on the exploitation of oil.â€

Al Sabban said his country wanted a new deal and was not impeding progress in talks as some activists have claimed.

An Arab environmental group IndyACT and the environmental group Germanwatch released a report today accusing Saudi Arabia of blocking key elements of the negotiations. Among their tactics, the groups said, was slowing negotiations by insisting that the economic woes of oil producers be included in the text.

“Despite the variability in the region, the current Arab position is mainly focused around protecting the oil trade rather than saving the planet form the adverse impacts of climate change,†said Wael Hmaidan, the executive director of IndyACT.

Most countries have agreed that any new pact should include provisions to avoid temperature increases of more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels — the threshold at which most scientists say serious climate change will ensue.

That would require emissions cuts from industrial countries of 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, far above the 15 to 23 percent cuts rich countries have offered so far. It would also require developing countries to scale back their emissions.

Both rich and poor countries are counting on a transition to a low carbon economy as a key component of meeting their reductions, a move that would require them to away from fossil fuels and toward renewables like solar, wind and hydro power.

 

[Smooth]

Both rich and poor countries are counting on a transition to a low carbon economy as a key component of meeting their reductions, a move that would require them to away from fossil fuels and toward renewables like solar, wind and hydro power.

Although i didnt go throw the whole thing, but that line caught my eye and i have to respone to that last statement,

Use common logic here, there's talkings about shift away from fossil fuel for decades now, thats never gonna happen imo, not before ww3/end of men/end of earth, not while there are heavy economic interests to keep the current status quo. too much money already invested in ships, rafts, gas stations, engine manufacture factories, gas based car manufacturies etc etc around the globe, we all can die as long as there is an economic interests to keep that sh*t running, US and any western (and none-westeren/ anyone with an intrest) will never allow any form or type green energy to take control, but then again, who really cares, its not like we will suffer, our great great great children probably will, so you can sit comfortable as we speak .

sorry if im out of place here, didnt mean to hijack.

 

[ali777]

Both rich and poor countries are counting on a transition to a low carbon economy as a key component of meeting their reductions, a move that would require them to away from fossil fuels and toward renewables like solar, wind and hydro power.

Although i didnt go throw the whole thing, but that line caught my eye and i have to respone to that last statement,

Use common logic here, there's talkings about shift away from fossil fuel for decades now, thats never gonna happen imo, not before ww3/end of men/end of earth, not while there are heavy economic interests to keep the current status quo. too much money already invested in ships, rafts, gas stations, engine manufacture factories, gas based car manufacturies etc etc around the globe, we all can die as long as there is an economic interests to keep that sh*t running, US and any western (and none-westeren/ anyone with an intrest) will never allow any form or type green energy to take control, but then again, who really cares, its not like we will suffer, our great great great children probably will, so you can sit comfortable as we speak .

sorry if im out of place here, didnt mean to hijack.

Nah.. I disagree, it will happen..

Is it Bryan or Gardener that repeatedly states that even if we do have alternative energy sources, we still need oil for lubrication, manufacturing, etc? We'll keep using petrol in one form or another for the foreseeable future but there is going to be an energy revolution.

For example, currently Spain is leading the way in the EU. They use solar powered stations, wind turbines, etc and their target is to generate 70% of the electricity from renewable resources. 70% is a big number.

I somehow suspect in Israel you already use solar heating to heat your water or something? If you don't, you should!!! My dad has one, so they must be cheap and affordable.

We aren't 100% there, there is no real plan to be 100% free of fossil fuel but the difference now is that there is a real effort in looking for renewable resources. I know all the conspiracy theories about the big businesses and the West intentionally stifling competition and research in alternative energies. This time there is awareness and the will to change, that's why I believe this time it is different.

Basically, the energy is there, eg wind, waves, solar waves, etc. We just need to figure out new processes in storing and managing that energy. Likewise, a new process of producing kinetic energy without relying on EMF or heat could also be useful.

 

[Smooth]

You mean the technology is there, anyway, $$$ already invested, they wont let the revenue die, the profits are calculated for years away from today, i mean a raft to pump oil probably costs more then a few mils, the whole gas stations and factories, such shift will shock the worlds economy, last economic crisis was kinda *shocky*.. worlds governments will do anything to avoid such scenario again.


(and yes, solar heating is being used here)

 

[Cassin]

Both rich and poor countries are counting on a transition to a low carbon economy as a key component of meeting their reductions, a move that would require them to away from fossil fuels and toward renewables like solar, wind and hydro power.

Although i didnt go throw the whole thing, but that line caught my eye and i have to respone to that last statement,

Use common logic here, there's talkings about shift away from fossil fuel for decades now, thats never gonna happen imo, not before ww3/end of men/end of earth, not while there are heavy economic interests to keep the current status quo. too much money already invested in ships, rafts, gas stations, engine manufacture factories, gas based car manufacturies etc etc around the globe, we all can die as long as there is an economic interests to keep that sh*t running, US and any western (and none-westeren/ anyone with an intrest) will never allow any form or type green energy to take control, but then again, who really cares, its not like we will suffer, our great great great children probably will, so you can sit comfortable as we speak .

sorry if im out of place here, didnt mean to hijack.

never say never...

ye old technology changes pretty fast.

 

[ali777]

You mean the technology is there, anyway, $$$ already invested, they wont let the revenue die, the profits are calculated for years away from today, i mean a raft to pump oil probably costs more then a few mils, the whole gas stations and factories, such shift will shock the worlds economy, last economic crisis was kinda *shocky*.. worlds governments will do anything to avoid such scenario again.

No, I mean the natural energy like the kinetic energy of the waves, or the heat from the Sun, etc is there. We just need to harvest that energy with the right processes.

You are overestimating the already invested $$$$$, every technology or factory needs to be upgraded once in a while.

We aren't talking about a revolutionary approach, it's a very slow process. Even if we do succeed at using less fuel in our cars, we'd still need petrol to fly, etc. We will be dependent on fossil fuel for the foreseeable future, we are just trying to cut down the amount we use...

Besides, all the governments realise that the current energy need is not sustainable. Most of the countries are running out of energy and we are fast becoming dependent on countries we don't want to depend on... That's why the West, ie the money people, do support the changes.