
America Loses Its Dominant Economic Role - peakok
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,581502,00.html
======
ajross
_"Also on display is the end of arrogance. The Americans are now paying the
price for their pride."_

Pure schadenfreude, most of it. Kind of sad, really, given that Der Spiegel
has a reputation for serious content. Most of the criticism of US policy is
valid, as far as it goes. And, yes, those policies have produced a ton of bad
blood among trading partners.

But this article just drips with glee at the plight of the poor, dumb
'mericans. That's just beneath them. Terrible journalism.

~~~
olefoo
> this article just drips with glee at the plight of the poor, dumb 'mericans.

Perhaps that is a warning sign that we should heed? When even our allies are
glad to see us brought low, that suggests that perhaps maybe we have not been
as well behaved as we should have been.

~~~
anamax
Why?

What are they going to do different?

When something bad happens to them or they get scared, they're going to start
screaming for us to help them.

When there's a problem somewhere else, they're still going to insist that we
fix it and complain that we didn't do it "right". Interestingly enough, there
are very few problems that they can handle on their own and the value of their
cooperation is "iffy" at best (see Afghanistan).

When you point out that they're impotent, they always point to their GDP and
never point to what they can do.

They'll keep selling us stuff and buying from us.

The only thing that will change is that they'll feel better about insulting
tourists. So much for "old world class".

~~~
andyking
I don't think it's fair to describe Britain's contribution in Afghanistan (or
indeed Iraq) as "iffy".

~~~
herdrick
And not just Britain.

~~~
andyking
Agreed. I'm no supporter of the wars being waged, I marched in London in 2003
and personally think "terror" should be somewhere down the list of global
concerns at present in the face of environmental pressures and the financial
issues. If the resources being expended on these wars by our governments was
instead spent on ending our dependence on oil by developing clean fuel
technologies or on setting the foundations for a new, more stable economic
system, we'd all be far better off.

However, that can't take away from the fact that the troops, working men and
women from this city, this country and from all over the world doing a
professional job and putting their necks on the line in this specious global
conflict. To dismiss their contributions as "iffy" does them a grave
disservice.

------
blackguardx
America is still a dominant economic force right now, but the writing is on
the wall. Unless careful action is taken, I think all the signs point towards
a decline in America's ability to project its power. As an American in my
20's, I grew up listening to hearing about how we were such a good country
with a good government, ruled by the people. Everyone preached how we were so
free, how our freedom defined us.

America's decline won't just be caused by the current financial crisis. You
cannot separate this phenomenon from our decreased standing in the world's
eyes as a shining beacon on a hill. We were supposed to be a model democracy.

The events in Iraq and Afghanistan, the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib,
extraordinary rendition, and Guantanamo Bay have lead to world to look away
from us when it comes to morality. We no longer occupy the moral high ground.
We no longer serve as a guideline for how to run a democracy. Now, with the
financial crisis in full swing, we no longer serve as a guideline for how to
manage an economy either.

Granted, we are still a large nation with many wealthy consumers. It will
probably take a generation for the full effects of our fall from grace to come
to fruition. But, when it comes down to it, we simply cannot maintain our
place in the world when the confidence in our country has been shaken so much,
both in terms of our government and our economic systems.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Not looking for a fight, but none of these things are new.

Initiating armed conflict: Spanish-American War, various invasions into
Mexico, to some degree Vietnam

Wartime screw-ups/atrocities: MyLai (sp?), firebombing of Dresden

Extraordinary rendition: probably the basis of every other spy novel for the
past 50 years. Nothing new except for the outrage

We still make things people want -- we have creativity and ideas that the rest
of the world desires. Take a look at Hollywood, or the electronic games
industry, or the advances in microcircuitry.

We were supposed to be a model democracy, yes. But democracies are made of
people, and people do bad or boneheaded stuff. The trick is that we have a
system where we make mistakes and then learn from them, not that no mistakes
are ever made.

I just wouldn't be too pessimistic. I'm more concerned with the rise of people
who think they can use some sort of social engineering to make the world
perfect than the foibles of our current reality.

~~~
blackguardx
You make some good points, but America didn't obtain any real power until
after World War II. Our fortunes are actually quite recent.

~~~
railsjedi
I'd highly recommend Fareed Zakaria's "Post American World". Give gives good
insight into how America rose to power. WWII helped, but it wasn't the
defining moment. It was the huge industrial advances at the end of the 19th
century that shaped our economic leadership in the world. Before even WWI, we
were the top producing nation in the world, with double digit growth rates
year after year.

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

~~~
netcan
I think the line this article is taking is one that has been told for a while.
It's just now possible that it will become visible in the next few years.

The US may continue it's first place in % of world GDP for a long time
(depending on how we define the EU), but that's not going to mean what it used
to. First with 15% when second third & fourth come in at 14, 13 & 12 doesn't
have the same sort of affect on the world.

In 2006 the surprise free (exact continuation of existing trends) prediction
for the economic superpower map was China surpassing the States by 2040 with
India not far behind & several countries at around 50% of the US's GDP. The
China-US equivalent was then moved to 2025 in 2007 (when the dollar went on
the move).

Now, a year down the line we hit another bump (so much for no surprises).
China's political dependence on economic growth & preference for good news,
might mean it's a while before anyone knows how China is affected. They could
come out more affected then the US. But that said, it seems possible that the
US will indeed be only one of several big players very soon. China doesn't
seem too interested in exerting political influence beyond their immediate
interests currently. Russia does but is not likely to wield enough power soon.
The EU is not a great mechanism for converting economic power to military &
political power. So the US will probably have a little more pull then their %
of GDP should entitle them to, for a while. But USA 2020 is not the same kind
of a power as US 1990. Potentially similar to Russia 1970 vs 2000.

The reality about things like 'The War on Terror' is that opinions of it among
academics, analysts, intelligent politicians (who by definition do not
disclose their true feelings on the subject) and importantly security/military
experts are that it is a threat on par with organised crime, HIV, traffic
accidents or whatever other troubles they might have. Only a small handful of
countries are seriously threatened by 'terrorists' either in terms of
affecting the lives of citizens (eg Israel) or politically (eg Lebanon). And
that is a far less serious threat then your average border conflict between
nations (which is likely result in loss of sovereignty or territory) or
internal conflicts.

The thing is, that makes sense. Britain copped a bombing. I don't want to
belittle that but if not for the political ramifications, that's no worse then
what a month of bad weather can do to traffic accidents. Certainly affects
people's lives a lot less then things like healthcare, policing or education.
It's not a danger of the 'Napoleon is coming' kind nor is signing up to the a
war effort controversially effective in stopping it.

If that's the opinion of most while the US president is still talking
terrorists, the US comes off as irrelevant. Almost like talking about making a
choice between Socialism & Barbarism.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Quick correction. You mistake the effects of terrorism to only be immediate-
damage-related. Terrorism is an existential threat in a democracy because the
goal is to create wide swings in public opinion to make the democracy do
things which are harmful to it.

~~~
netcan
I agree. But political, psychological implications considered, Britain is not
under a _serious_ threat from terrorism. Neither is France, Germany, Canada,
Japan or virtually anyone else.

The US is more susceptible to terrorism largely because of its rhetoric. They
could for example, get drawn into or prolong a war. But that's not the same
kind of threat that even dwarfs like N. Korea or Iran present. Terrorism fast
hits a brick wall. If attacks become common in The States (eg 5 per year) long
term, they will get used to it. Just like gang violence. You could
theoretically just ignore it & the US would still be the US. The same could
not ba said of the Cold War War II, or any other 'real' war.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Think about your use of the word _serious_. Wars are fought until one side
decides to stop fighting. Laws are made because people are emotional
creatures. I'm not going to get long-winded, but there are plenty of examples
of small losses of lives leading to major policy changes, loss of freedom,
change of ruling party, decisions to either engage or disengage large military
forces etc. Terrorism is an emotional warfare, not one in which you count up
the damage on a balance sheet.

The outcomes I mention are extremely serious. Outcomes that are easily
existentially important to the state.

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

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

------
callmeed
2007 GPD in millions of USD: (1) United States 13,843,825 (2) Japan 4,383,762
(3) Germany 3,322,147 (4) China (PRC) 3,250,827 (5) United Kingdom 2,772,570
(6) France 2,560,255 (7) Italy 2,104,666

Hey Spiegel, why don't you come back when Germany's GDP hits double-digit
trillions.

~~~
sfk
Statistics, statistics...

 _European Union_ : $16.62 trillion (2007 est.)

United States: $13.84 trillion (2007 est.)

~~~
miked
Statistics, statistics...

European Union: 500,000,000 people

United States: 304,000,000 people

~~~
jorgeortiz85
The US also works much longer hours.

People in France and Germany produce 30-40% more GDP per hour of work than
people in the US do.

~~~
miked
Umm, no. From the Boston Globe:

"American workers stay longer in the office, at the factory, or on the farm
than their counterparts in Europe and most other rich nations, and they
produce more per person over the year.

They also get more done per hour than everyone but the Norwegians, according
to a UN report that said the United States "leads the world in labor
productivity." The report was released in Geneva today, which is Labor Day in
the United States.

The average US worker produces $63,885 of wealth per year, more than their
counterparts in all other countries, the International Labor Organization said
in its report. Ireland comes in second at $55,986, followed by Luxembourg at
$55,641, Belgium at $55,235, and France at $54,609.

[http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/09/03/...](http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/09/03/study_us_workers_are_worlds_most_productive/)

My guess is that the Norwegians are doing so well because they are a tiny
country with a massive amount of oil exports.

These figures are all the more surprising since, when one works fewer hours,
the rate of productivity should be higher, not lower, as the low-hanging fruit
get picked first (law of marginal utility). Moreover, the trend is that the US
productivity rate is increasing faster than that of Europe. At current trends,
it won't be many years from now when the EU has a per capita GDP less than
half that of the US.

<rant> One of our problems is that we are working long hours to pay for the
defense of the rest of the free world while Europe goes on vacation. When you
get up and go to work in the morning, think a fond thought for our European
"allies" who are taking the day off.

We need to get out of NATO now. Let the Russians shut off the gas to them
(again), or the Arabs and Iranians shut off their oil, or the "youths" of
indeterminate cultural background burn a few thousand more cars. The Europeans
(it wasn't just the Germans and Italians) have killed about 400,000 of our
young men. That's enough, I think. </rant>

~~~
jorgeortiz85
Are those numbers adjusting for purchasing power parity? If so they're bogus.

The nominal GDP per hour worked numbers from OECD confirm my statement.

And if you're paying for the defense of the "rest of the free world", it's
being "paid" with debt financed by Asia and the Middle East.

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

------
cmars232
World trade will become irrelevant once we develop our own energy independence
and desktop manufacturing. These two technological breakthroughs will render
cultural and economic hegemonies irrelevant.

The next great economic triumph won't be the victory of any particular country
or region. It will be the emergence of distributed and decentralized economic
power.

That's how I'd like to see it go down, anyhow..

~~~
olefoo
There wil;l still be resource contention, fresh water for instance.

~~~
DabAsteroid
<http://www.google.com/search?q=nuclear+desalination>

------
larryfreeman
I think that it's too early to say that America has lost its dominant economic
role.

When it's true, it won't make such a long news story because it will be
obvious and uninteresting.

The length of the news stories shows that it is still early. So far, the only
one who says America is about to collapse is the crazy president of Iran.

~~~
adrianwaj
After reading this article: <http://bit.ly/2QsjEr>

I had a feeling that this article would be off-key.

"Financial Crisis: So much for tirades against American greed"

"It took a weekend to shatter the complacency of German finance minister Peer
Steinbrück. Last Thursday he told us that the financial crisis was an
"American problem", the fruit of Anglo-Saxon greed and inept regulation that
would cost the United States its "superpower status"...By Monday, Mr
Steinbrück was having to orchestrate Germany's biggest bank bail-out, putting
together a €35 billion loan package to save Hypo Real Estate."

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

~~~
qwph
> Notice the authors didn't sign their names to the story.

That's odd, I had assumed that the list of names _at the end of the article_
were the authors...

Beat Balzli, Klaus Brinkbaumer, Frank Hornig, Hans Hoyng, Armin Mahler,
Alexander Neubacher, Wolfgang Reuter, Christoph Pauly, Michael Sauga

~~~
dhimes
I believe that you are correct. My mistake.

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

------
natch
Heckofa job, Republicans.

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

------
dhimes
see also <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=321318>

------
lst
This doesn't surprise me: the highly risky money speculations (all invented in
the US) had to come to an end, sooner or later.

They did well as long as the US had a continuous growth, but there are now
many 'New Americas' out there, which will make there own new way of life.

America: sorry, but you're getting old already...

