History, they say, does not repeat – but it does echo. Looking back at other situations, other republics and empires, one is tempted to draw parallels between then and now. The parallel drawn most often is the decline of the British Empire.
American world dominance, as with British, was based on a military dominance that came out of economic dominance. From about 1890 on America had the world’s most powerful economy, outproducing Britain industrially, and backed moreover by a continental resource base. At the end of World War II the US was producing about half the world’s goods. Since then there has been a gradual decline, and the rise of larger powers – China and India, whose populations are significantly larger than that of the US. As in the decline of Britain, capital is fleeing the old empire, heading for the rising powers. As in the decline of Britain, the new powers flout intellectual property laws, refusing to pay rent to the old power. As in the 1890’s – the rising power has now, on a pricing parity scale, an economy equal to the old empire. As in the case of Britain military overstretch is straining the dominant power. Financialization, the curse of late stage empires, has hit the US as it hit Britain, with rent-seeking the predominant method of making money, and actual production of goods ignored. American capital flows to other countries seeking returns, and builds factories there. American ex-pats teach other nations how to compete, even as Scottish engineers did during the decline of the UK. As with Britain, America, breathless with greed, is teaching others how to defeat it.
But another parallel is Spain. Even as Britain was declining, its overseas assets were performing gangbusters, and money flooded back into London. Balance of payments was not a British problem till after the end of Empire. Spain, however, followed another route. The flood of easy money into Spain destroyed its native middle and artisan classes, dividing the country into the wealthy, who had “incomes” and the poor, who had almost nothing. Neither could be taxed – the poor because they had no money, the rich because they were exempt from taxes. The government, to run its own affairs, had to borrow from Italian bankers, who demanded exhorbitant returns. The contents of entire treasure fleets barely touched Spanish hands towards the end of empire, instead rushing to Italy and Holland. In the US today, the middle class shrinks and taxation rests increasingly on the stressed middle class and the working class. But comparatively speaking, year after year, for the last three decades, the share of wealth and income of these classes has declined. The rich, meanwhile, have arranged that their income, their investment returns and the money they use to control capital either be taxed less than earned income, or not be taxed at all. And so the US has become a poor state, unable to intervene overseas without begging from other nations. The first Gulf War was financed by other nations as a gift. The second Iraq War was financed by China and Japan – as heavy, heavy debt, even as the rich were demanding and receiving tax breaks and an end to estate taxes. The American aristocracy has demanded that it be allowed to pass its wealth on to future generations, and it has been given what it demanded.
A third parallel is Rome at the end of the Republic. The forms are maintained – there is still a Senate, for example, and still independent courts. But the Senate has lost its ability to control warmaking, to advise and consent, to subpoena information from the executive. Those with imperium (presidents today, proconsuls in Roman times) use it as they see fit, giving only a hat tip of acknowledgement to the Senate. The military, once loyal to the Republic and made up of citizen soldiers called up for the duration of wars and no longer, has become a professional force with a significant mercenary contingent. It is politicized and prefers specific political factions, and is seen as a role model for the rest of society. The wealthy use the military and the senate alike to enrich themselves; the free farmers who were once the backbone of the society no longer exist, but have been replaced by large corporate farms. The rich grow richer, and the poor grow poorer.
A fourth parallel, and very applicable to the current time yet rarely mentioned, is that of Athens. Athens was a shining democracy for its time. Athens believed that democracy was the best form of government. And Athens was willing to go to war to make other city-states become democracies. And if bad things happened while you were being turned into a democracy – well, the weak suffer what they must and since Athens was good, whatever they did must be justified. In the end even many of their own allies turned on Athens and their meddling, allying with a much less enlightened Sparta, who while internally repressive, did not seem to think they had the right to tell other nations how to run their own affairs. The parallels between Athens and America; and Sparta and China – should be obvious.
In the end America will follow its own unique path. All Republics end, and so do all Empires. There is, in human history, a series of cycles of renewal, decay and renewal. Each one ends in a crisis period, and each crisis must be overcome. It is never inevitable that you’ll fail – but it’s never guaranteed you’ll succeed either. It is this generation’s task to renew the tree of liberty and keep the American experiment going – to remain true to the ideals that made America and have driven it since 1776. It is my profoundest wish, as we come up on the New Year and look both back and forward, that you are successful in doing so, and that America once again becomes the beacon of liberty and hope that its founders wanted it to be.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
Shhhh…parallel…(title)
Degeneration into a kleptocracy! How many kleptocrats does it take to destroy a democracy?
Thank you, Ian, brilliant yet obvious parallels. Renew the tree of liberty? We will give it all we got.
Those that can write, those that can’t spellcheck.
Another parallel with Great Britain… they invaded and colonized Iraq… and it didn’t turn out well.
Should this read as “even as Scottish engineers did during the decline of the UK. ????
I like to think of this cycle as a sort of macro-kondratieff cycle. Any thoughts on that?
Dubhaltach.
I seem to remember an episode from the original “Star Trek” series where the “aristocrats” become so dependent upon their “slaves, ” that the “slaves” become the “masters.” The theme is an old one, but the principle seems to be timeless. We are becoming so dependent on the “world” (i.e., cheap goods, cheap labor, lack of environmental safeguards, lack of labor protections and standards) we lose the ability to take care of “our own” at the expense of all … especially the middle class and the poor. As we do, those who would be our “slaves” become our “masters.” We are dependent upon them for virtually everything of importance … we are degraded as an economy … as a society … as a nation. Now, we believe that we are “in control.” Soon, however, we will find that our “slaves” have become our “masters” … in fact, that may already be true. Greed and hubris will cause us to refuse to recognize the obvious until it too late. Four to eight more years of Republican rule will undoubtedly seal our fate. I hope and pray that I’m wrong.
Does “parallel with Great Britain” make US wanabe Brits? You’d think we would have learned but noooooo.
Ian,
Question: When each of the empires or republics you discuss lost its status or fell, did some new idea about how humans should think or organize arise?
“It is this generation’s task to renew the tree of liberty and keep the American experiment going – to remain true to the ideals that made America and have driven it since 1776. It is my profoundest wish, as we come up on the New Year and look both back and forward, that you are successful in doing so, and that America once again becomes the beacon of liberty and hope that its founders wanted it to be.”
Damn. Well said. Perfectly sums up the way I feel about this time in history.
Woops, sorry about the typo in the title.
But the Zygote in Chief is telling us our economy is “strong” and everything is comming up roses. The view here is that the only thing strong about our economy is the nasty recession we may be heading into. Cut taxes and have wars is the obvious answer to any bumps in the Bush road to rosyness. When in fact the opposite is the correct course of action. But hey what do I know? I’m just a C minus MBA from an Ivy League factory. And the impression is that the Bush example of economics represents but a fine distinction between ‘empire’, colonialism and outsourcing.
Judging by Tony Blair & Gordon Brown, it seems the Brits want to skim some of their past glory from us. As near as I can tell, that’s what “special relationship” means.
Thanks Du, you’re quite correct.
Those who can’t proof their own work.
Don’t think the Brits colonized Iraq. Think occupied is a more accurate description.
Spoilsport :-))))))))))))))))))))))) Anyway if you’d read it in a rrrrrrrolllling scottish accent it would have been right. (We currently have a guest from Glasgow who has lived in Montreal for 10 years and are wondering if we should try talking to them in German because in both English and French we’re having severe difficulty working out what they’re saying …..)
To some extent - the fall of Spain led to an end to religiously driven wars in Europe; the fall of Britain led to an end to direct colonialism (American colonialism relies on local elites to do the job rather than actual administration, with occasional exceptions). Not sure about Athens fall, though I suspect it probably had the effect of somewhat discrediting democracy.
Some lessons are learned for a long time, others fade fast. The decline in colonialism has more to do with the decline in relative power between core and periphery.
Brits want to keep influence and believe that the special relationship is how they can do it. It is also a way of balancing off the power of Europe - playing the two against each other.
LOL!!! I wasn’t trying to be rrrrroooooood, I was just peunntin’ it ooot sau that “paust” looooooked goooooood ferrrrr the Paauusterrrr..
In terms of much of what the brits did and other colonial powers in the 19th century the boundary tends to blur. True colonization, of course, is what happened in North America, or what recently happened in Israel, but occupation and colonization are part of the same spectrum. Large parts of the world were listed as British colonies, but in many places there were very few actual colonists.
Well that’s the whole conservative thing. Living in the past.
Nice words, and an understandable sentiment. Without offering offense may I say it’s a pipe dream? Climate change and Peak Oil are fixing to so change the world that politics and economic theory are meaningless. There is a school of thought that the continental US is too large to be governed (or ruled) as a single unit without the plentiful supply of cheap fossil energy that has driven its ascendancy.
The signs of the end of the U.S. empire are many. The problem with talking about them is that many Americans get offended and others laugh because it will be so long into the future, why bother about it? I have a very intelligent friend who is in the latter category. He just raises his eyebrows & sez, so what country is challenging the U.S. for global dominance–EU, China? Get real.
He’s right in a sense. Even hegemons that have no redeeming features persist for much longer than you would think. The problem is that if you don’t correct your problems soon enough, then the outcome becomes inevitable, analogous to those who now argue that global warming is irreversible.
Manipulation. The key mastery today is manipulation - manipulate economies, markets, governments, consumers, judicial system. My great flaw and why I don’t fit in is my lack of mastery of manipulation. I can’t even manipulate my kids and dog.
I thought colonization was when you bring your own people to settle in another’s land. Wasn’t aware that the Brits did that in Iraq. I thought occupation referred to a foreign power controlling the levers of power, without settling the country with their own people. That’s what I had thought the Brits did in Iraq.
I think there’s a BIG difference between the two. Stealing land as well as power is much more debilitating to the soul of the hegemon.
Britain was in decline for a long time. But I think, using that analogy, the US is in the late twenties. Another twenty years aint that long. Make it 40 at the outside. At that rate odds are many of us will see it. Certainly most of our kids will.
“fast” is relative.
Also the US decline is greater than people think it is. The systematic manipulation of inflation numbers means that the US GDP is not nearly as large as the official figures–compound interest works in reverse as well. At this point I consider GDP comparisons a species of fiction. Instead I look at leading sectors and I don’t like what I see.
Ian, an inspiring essay, thank you. I think it has become obvious that we are in the midst of an archetypal death-rebirth drama. By obvious I mean the events of the last seven years, i.e., the attacks on our Constitution, the lawlessness of the administration, Abu Gharaib and the installation of torture as official policy are some examples and are indicative of an empire in decline. Astrologically, a very potent planet (which presides over death and rebirth) in the U.S. chart is returning to its position in 1776 at the birth of the nation. I think leading up to the rebirth, our country will go through a turbulent period of “sturm and drang” in the next few years, which is why I appreciate your note of hope and having a long view is helpful. In the short term, however, I don’t agree with the predictions from some Wall Street experts about a recession being mild and recovered from by the second half of 2008).
Those may be the strict definitions, but if that’s how you want to define it then a lot of 19th century Colonialism wasn’t, which is why I consider occupation one thing colonial powers do, that is still part of colonialism. If you want to cut a bright line down it, then you run into real problems — was Hong Kong a colony? Malaysia? Singapore?
So who’s the next global power? Think China can go that far in 20 years? Europe seems undesiring of reattaining any such role, which is what endears me so much to them.
That is an interesting thought…did the British establish “colonies” in what is now known as Iraq that eventually became enmeshed with those that were occupied, as happened in the Caribbean?? Certainly, it is the case in India. I wonder if there are many descendants of such colonies in Iraq and whether that is regarded as a status or “class” symbol that furthered the class domination and then later resulted in rebellion.
I will add that “real” colonization is almost always genocide or ethnic cleansing because almost nowhere is unpopulated, now, or in the 16th century.
The U.S. isn’t going to fall, it is falling and has been since about 1980.
The fall of the USSR and the tech bubble of the 1990s were distractions, debris.
The key indicator is the vapidness of U.S. popular culture.
The scary thing, IMO, is that the U.S. holds basically all the cards from a military standpoint. Not true of the other empires and republics when they fell.
There are periods where the world is multipolar. Multiple great powers. Look forward to one of those.
a great read Ian
a couple of things;
all countries must protect their own economy, this is obvious once told, isn’t it
when a country, due to restrictive labor policies, can import a product at greatly reduced prices then we can manufacture that same product, the product MUST be tariffed so that there is an equal playing field
it’s fine to import product we do not manufacture at no tariff, it’s NOT fine to import product we DO manufacture without making sure it’s being produced on a level field
if they don’t provide a decent wage, tariff, if they don’t provide health care, tariff, if their laborers work more then a 40 hour week with no added compensation, tariff, if there is no vacation, tariff
we are a government for the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE
we are in the business of enriching PEOPLE, we are NOT in the business of enriching corporations
at one time tariffs were the funds that financed this country and we really have to bring tariffs back on line
now to take issue with one point from your post;
there is a very big difference, this administrations “claims” they are trying to spread democracy are a facade, a lie, they are nothing but propaganda
this administration’s ONLY goal is to destabilize the middle east and pillage treasure, that’s their purpose, they do NOT want to spread democracy, if they did they wouldn’t have overthrown secular states and installed theocracies, they wouldn’t have brought foreigners in to do the work of the Iraqi’s, the would have protected the infrastructure, they would have secured the people, they would have guarded their assets, they would NOT have instituted policies of torture and systems of law that are disassociated with justice
their goal was not to spread democracy, their goal was to spread shock, awe, create theocratic robber baron economies and steal treasure
fingers cramped now, me goes to massage hand
China has all the money and is waiting for the right moment to spring a few surprises on the ol’ U.S. of A… let’s start with the re-annexing of Taiwan and then let’s talk about all those forests in Oregon.
The word colony was used for both cases, actual colonization & occupation. I prefer to maintain the distinction because of what I said, what it does to the soul of the settler nation. I think one of the deepest psychological (if you can use that word wrt a country)problems of the U.S. is what we did to the indiginous population. Most U.S.ers use denial as a coping technique, but look how virulent Ann coulter has to get in order to actually acknowledge it. Two other prime examples of what I’m talking about are South Africa & Israel. Big difference between what happens in those countries vs Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore.
In light of our humongous debt, just what pocket did Congress pull out the $550 billion they rolled over to “give” W???? Spend the money you don’t have…how could they do that out of “thin air”…D’oh.
So what you’re saying is colonization is worse?
I tend to agree, if there’s an indigenous population. Mind you, an oddity of the South African thing is that the whites and Zulus arrived at about the same time–there were just a lot more Zulus. The indigenous population from before colonization makes up a decided minority in South Africa.
The most pernicious modern example is clearly Israel.
Doesn’t colonialization have something to do with stealing natural resources from other nations? Many argue that Iraq was about oil. I fall into that camp. When Bush talks about vital interests he means other countries resources.
As to bringing our own people in, in Iraq we have pretty much done that with American soldiers, the CIA, probably the FBI, Bechtal, Halliburton, and Blackwater and Lord knows who else. And our government controls the Iraqi government. And also, there is the foul suffocating scent of rascism associated with empire, occupation and colonialization.
If there were a multipolar world, how would it influence the U.S. versus now?
While the Brits didn’t have lots of Brits immigrating to these countries (Hong Kong population of nonAsians was 2%) they used education in a specific way - English became the key language. Still is in these countries. They also used another technique to colonize. They brought in people from their other colonies. These were usually the merchant class and reduced the native population as they did in Fiji until the Indian population was 50% of the population.
Good point about South Africa, which I had forgotten. Quickly the whites outnumbered the blacks, and the large number of the latter came later for economic reasons. So the whites didn’t steal the land in that sense, but they did steal the blacks’ labor.
One of the ironies of all this is look where they put Tony Blair.
In Iraq the US hasn’t set up permanent colonies. Possibly permanent military bases, but that’s not the same thing.
Colonization is a vague thing, with a ton of writing and theory about it. Different folks define it different ways. Suffice to say that what the US is doing is (arguably) part of the American colonial system, but is not colonization.
and russia tried to controll afghanistan…they went bankrupt as we are
“The Homeland, formerly known as the United States of America” is walking around the world “nekked”, as if they were “the” superpower; meanwhile, the loan sharks are lurking….
Want to talk about stealing labor, look at the Banana Republics.
The key indicator is the vapidness of U.S. popular culture.
I think there’s a difference between MSM pop culture and actual culture. If I dig just below the surface of the MSM, I find whole lot of really excellent shit going on. Ya just gotta look for it.
Americans are smarter than its guminit and it’s fourth branch/estate.
Just like “Democracy Now” is generally 3 to 6 months ahead of the MSM news curve, just like Keith Olbermann works for a leading defense contractor, just like Howard Dean is still an election cycle ahead of the Democratic Party, we will win.
The right will never get the concept of individual empowerment, or understand how da toobz moves that process along.
So true, LS, it’s all about debt.
But they are setting up permanent military bases. No?
Lose the reserve currency status. Lose guaranteed access to resources. Probably more wars rather than less, though they’d mostly be proxy wars (I hope, the other option is much worse). Decline in standard of living (the US is already about 20% above its sustainable standard of living according). Probably a long period of painful relative decline. Folks always love to tell me how wonderful Britain is these days, but I have British relatives who lived through the post war decades. It was bloody unpleasant and that was a near “best case” twilight period. Mind you, in principle the US can come out a lot better than England, it has substantial advantages the Brits didn’t. We’ll see how the US plays its hand. It’s still a very good hand. But you don’t play the hand, you play the person, and the US’s elites are probably the biggest bunch of boobs amongst the great powers right now. Which is sure saying something, because most of the competition is nothing special either.
That’s the plan. It’s not the same thing as colonists, though. Look to Israel’s west bank. Colonists are about real permanence (or an attempt at it.)
Please put the Kool-Aid down, America is in her prime.
-Larry Kudlow
We all seem to have a fair idea about what occupation is; what happens in colonies, and what ‘empire’ means. Bottom line: I know when I see it, what gross exploitation by strong nations of weak countries looks like.
Astral at 48
You’re right. Maybe I need to dig.
But I think (and feel) the era of Louis Armstrong, Miles Davis, Duke Ellington, Count Basie, Harry James, and so many more, and then think (and feel) the late 50s, the 60s, and the 70s, and I feel a void trying to feel today’s popular artists.
see…. that’s what I get for listening to my husband! I was gonna put invaded and occupied, but he viewed it as “colonized.” Whatever….
I think the less complex the culture the easier it is to colonize. Countries like Indonesia with over 2,000 languages and dialects, countless cultures each distinctive makes it much more difficult to penetrate and replaced the culture. After 350 years in Indonesia you would never know the Dutch were there 25 years after independence. Amazing. The Dutch caused havoc in Indonesia and plundered that country for the entire of its occupation/colonialization history. They brought poverty and destabilization to the Indonesian people. Still, they could not penetrate their culture and traditions. The Japanese couldn’t. The Muslims couldn’t. The Hindus couldn’t. The Fijians were a single group. The Malays have subtribes in remote areas. Hong Kong is predominately Cantonese.
You have to get around the pipes. In those time periods there weren’t less than 10 media conglomerates controlling between 80% to 90% of everything most Americans see and hear.
Good topic, Ian.
I’m off to prepare dinner. Have a good evening everyone.
The Dutch weren’t very good colonists though (in many ways). Still, you’re also right. Nonetheless Britain left a huge mark on India and India was and is very complex and an ancient cultured society with over 100 indigenous languages. (And, for an english speaker, still a good place to travel, as English is one of the most widely spoken languages there.)
Bingo. Are you including the Ds in your bunch ‘o boobs, not just the Ds in Congress now, but the ones who will advise the next prez?
Have to think about the rest of your answer.
But that was great. It sparked a lot of good discussion, that I didn’t anticipate when I responded to you. So thank your husband.
We can discuss occupation, colonialization and empire ’til the cows come home. But can we agree that one way or the other each of these concepts have to do with ripping off weak nations by strong nations.
As an aside, can we say that military presence generally preceeds occupation, colonialization and or empire building?
I remember being exposed the the meanings of occupation, empire, and colonialization way back in high school and college. Didn’t most of us?
Yes, I had noticed that after my response. I was away for a bit. And thought I had really made a major blooper. Thanks for your kid response.
It’s interesting how words have different connotations for different people. A lot of arguments could end if people would just try and understand what others mean… like can happen here, for example
I have to agree with Kiddo but with the caveat that it’s a spectrum - one of the forms of colonialism is seizure of control of resources. You don’t necessarily have to seize legal ownership all you have to do is get control of the resource(s) and exploit them for your benefit. Control by puppet government is a very good way of doing that. It was tried in Iran and worked for a while …
WRT to the permanent bases in Irak. Every single one of them is in relatively densely inhabited areas mostly along the rivers. Irak isn’t called “The Land of The Two Rivers” for nothing. This is one (of many) reasons why the idea of permanent bases is seriously dim. There isn’t going to be peace when every Iraki knows that just up the road is a pack of foreigners with no right to be there and with a substantial blood debt outstanding.
There’s a contemporary Brit historian whose name I can’t remember who argues that the British empire was good for the world, and India is a prime example. As I understand his arguement, India, given the diversity you mention, would never hang together as a country without having the governmental structure that the Brits left them. Not sure how I feel about that.
Which raises another, totally different (so feel free not to respond), but related topic. And that is the breakup of “nations” on the basis of ethnic or other identities. Yugoslavia, Soviet Union are the two biggies, but it’s going on all over the place. Czechoslovakia is done, Belgium is on the way. And there are others I can’t think of now. Oh, Pakistan has a lot of ethnic unrest.
Perhaps the U.S. is an anachronism in a nation sense. There are several separatist movements, though I don’t know how serious, within the U.S.
Ferguson.
Yeah, I include the D’s as a whole. America’s elites are completely disconnected from the population–they live in multiple bubbles and the last thirty years have been just the best time to power and/or rich and connected in the US in living memory. They really, fundamentally, don’t feel (not think, but feel) that anything is substantially wrong with the US and that’s because life is good for them and for everyone they know.
As Diamond observed, whether a society weathers a crisis period properly is based on if its elites are subject to the pressures of the crisis.
American elites aren’t, and that’s the key problem in the US and its why pessimism is justified. Take Britain–Britain didn’t really get off the coal economy until the 50’s. Why? Because there were too many interests and sunk costs in the coal industry. But smart Brits knew this-Winston Churchill put the navy onto oil very early, for example, and the Brits worked overtime to secure oil supplies and routes. Yet they didn’t retrofit their internal economy.
The key question then, is this — are sclerotic old interests in the US so powerful that new interests will be strangled in the cradle? In telecoms the answer was initially no (in the 90’s) but since then it has turned out to be Yes — copyright law and government allowed oligopolies are crushing th telecom infrastructure build out leaving the US gasping in the dust in an industry it invented.
Next question — when the technology is created to allow the world to move off oil (and we’re getting closer) will it be applied large scale in the US?
We’ll see.
I’d include the work of missionaries in there somewhere. A good way to get the colonized to internalize their colonization.
I’ve had the opportunity to look at how the standards of living between the US and Spain have literally flip-flopped over the 40 years of having relatives in Spain. Initially I could see people lived with far, far less than we did. But now there is no doubt, none at all, that not only have all the relatives reached our standard, but we are declining at a fast clip in comparison.
This morning I was thinking that we live very frugally and simply. If we had to economize, we could get by on one car. But beyond that, about all we can cut is our daily NY Times and our enjoyment of wine with dinner. I was really stumped with which one to give up - if we have to do that. Maybe both one day!
And then we have the Philippines which is a U.S. Possession, and Puerto Rico which is a sort of quasi U.S. Possession.
Ian,
You see the world and its social history through the lens of someone who thinks in terms of economics.
An artist might see the same world and its social history differently.
A physicist might see (would see) things another way.
My point: I like VERY much your thoughts. I try to come here each time you post. I gain or try to gain much from what you write, of which I’m ignorant. But I think there is a bigger reality to the topics you discuss.
What Spain did to Mexico comes to mind along the lines you mention.
I think the argument would be that the British empire did some good things and a lot of bad things. I took a course on Hong Kong history once and the prof didn’t seem to really get, at this core, that Chinese came to Hong Kong, despite the way the Brits treated them, because they still treated them better and more fairly, and more “by the law” than any of the Chinese governments during Hong Kong’s history did.
The urge to blame colonial powers for all the world’s wrongs is overblown and smacks of self-flagellation. That said, they clearly did many many wrongs and overall were a negative.
As a “least evil” matter, I would also add that given a choice of 19th century colonial powers to rule you, the smart choice was definitely Britain (followed probably by France).
Thanks for the name.
WRT your 66, what will the Iraqis do about the basis. Presumably, even with a D in the WH, the bases will be there & there’ll be a puppet govt. As I understand it, the bases are impenetrable and the U.S. has complete control of the air. So what options are open to Iraqis? Or are you talking about farther into the future when they can get a govt of their own?
One way to ensure your empire collapses is to do this.
Allow your corporations to transfer capital earned from your labour to another country, free of charge.
Allow them to set up a corporation in another country so they can pay tax to that country on their profits, and subsidize the capital outflow by giving them credit for their tax paid in other countries. Require that they pay tax only if they bring the profits back to the US, which they do infrequently (Bush gave them a deal to repatriate profits at a lower rate which some did and boosted corporate tax revenues for a couple of years)
Allow the newly set up foreign corporation to produce goods in other countries using cheaper labour, effectively lowering the cost of production, and increasing their profits. The tax paid on profits earned overseas is well below 5%, instead of 35%, and US jobs are lost (9 million and counting).
Import the product you used to produce in your own country, and have the workers who used to make good money producing it, and who are now working in lower paying jobs, buy it. Since they can not afford the “cheap” products that are marked up by a factor of 10 at the retail level, they use their credit cards and pay usury interest rates to the banks.
Since the product you used to produce for consumption and export is no longer being produced, you run up trade deficits.
Since the profits on the product that used to be produced in the US is also being taxed elsewhere, tax revenues paid by corporations go down relative to their overall profits, and individuals end up paying 3 times more tax than corporations as they do now.
Reduce the tax on the rich and corporations who use their new riches to invest in debt, CDO’s, SIV’s, etc., and get richer, or to finance their downsizing in the US and expanding their operations in other countries.
Allow the wages of individual workers to decrease relative to inflation by undereporting inflation with a fraudulent CPI. Forcing them to refinance their homes and assume more credit card debt, paying usury interest rates on money that is created out of thin air after you assume such debt (no, they do not loan you money they already have, that is too risky, they create it thanks to our fractional reserve banking system, but you do not know this so agree to pay interest)
Allow your banks to give mortgages to illegal aliens, including sub-primes, and have your Government Sponsored Enterprises like Fredie Mac guarantee the loans, buy them, and sell them off as MBS’s with a promise to make up the difference if the Investment Banks are not satisfied with their return. When the Investment Banks finally get in trouble, HAVE THE Fed offer to loan them money while accepting their bad sub-prime debt as collateral.
Free Trade is a good thing, one country sells what another does not have. But if in order to have Free Trade with the World, we have to export our national wealth to them, and then move your companies and jobs to that country so they can produce something you used to make to sell you, paid for with money that that is in plentiful supply (1000 trillion in transactions annually), but your consumers seem not to have enough of, so they have to borrow to pay for them, well, thats just National Suicide.
Consider it a sacrifice for Globalization. The world appreciates your generosity, but they call you suckers on the way to their bank.
The next stage is the dollar collapse, depression, and then the UN and Multi-Nationals can rescue us and buy up all our national assets for 10 cents on the dollar. Mission Accomplished.
Bingo.
Of course, there are multiple ways to see things, and most of them have some element of truth to them.
The rise and fall of great powers is, I think, best viewed through economic and technological lenses, with some exceptions. But the reason for economic and technological leads has much more to do with society and social organization and that has to do with ideas much more than most people want to believe.
Nations that fall apart for economic reasons fell apart socially in some fashion long before the rot brought them down.
free trade is not a good thing, that’s corporate propaganda
there must always be regulation and each respective country must protect the interests of their own economy
there is not such thing as free trade
Very, very good summary.
Minus the paranoia about illegals the UN, mind you.
Thanks folks for a good discussion.
Back to my book. I can listen to C-SPAN & blog at the same time, but I can’t read a book & blog at the same time.
I think you have those reversed. Puerto Rico is a US possession/commonwealth while the Philippines have been nominally an independent nation since the late forties
It’s all about using our hard-earned money, to rip off other nations, costing us more than what they are actually ripping off; and that they “the ripper offers” end up with the ripped off money in their pockets, and the “dupes” us and those ripped off are left gaping and broke. Ain’t that against the law???
Impeach Now!
Arrest them.
They’ll keep on fighting. People keep on trying to put this in sectarian terms. There is sectarianism in Irak but nationalism is far stronger. There are two ways to get peace:
1) Leave.
2) Kill around twenty million people.
You have no idea how hated America now is. The war in Irak has created a society of orphans, (Mohammed Ibn Laith’s phrase) they know who did this to them and they believe in revenge. What’s going on now is the consolidation and creation of alliances between the various resistance movements - Sunni and Shia alike. I invite you to think of what a weapon millions of orphans can be.
I would say this is the calm before the storm. I would also say that the various resistance movements are eminently capable of so wrecking the oil fields and pipelines that it becomes seriously uneconomic to stay. And yes they would if they felt that was what it took to get ther Americans to leave.
Oh, and by the way, the big ripper offers wear really, really, ridiculously big shoulder pads!!!!!! Observe. Check out Musharraf’s shoulder pads…Anybody ever read Monty Roberts?
Impeach!
Ian,
There is no truth or element of truth.
There is only the search for reality.
Bingo.
Reality is truth.
Don’t Bogart that Art!! *g*
Yes, I believe the Philippines ceased being a U.S. possession in the mid 1940’s. My mistake.
http://www.merriam-webster.com.....rto%20rico
I think it is bound up in the massive overhang of debt and of established interests, yes. The only way to get rid of them seems to be to go through a real prolonged crisis.
Ian,
Reality is tricky. It depends on human perceptions and thoughts.
Truth = Reality.
Sure.
But what is reality?
Not trying to start some big fight.
But reality (truth) is a big, not a small, discussion.
Bush finally warms to warming
At end of term, in search of a greener legacy, president highlights warming
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22424845/
Yup, can’t really do it justice here. For an extended take, try this:
http://firedoglake.com/2007/11.....nsequence/
Some have posited there is a relationship between truth and beauty.
Ian with your permission I’m going to blogwhore (not for Gorilla’s Guides) we posted an article from Xinhua who have excellent coverage of Irak. Lurch of Main & Central did a good piece on it Anbar May Only Be Snoozing he’s also picked up on a comment of mine (Re: Bhutto assasination) that the Muslim mourning period is 40 days. Expect trouble once the mourning period is over. But his take on the Anbar article in Xinhua really does come under the heading of required reading.
Du
Al-Maliki flies to London for medical tests
An official in his office says it is for treatment for exhaustion
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki flew to London on Saturday for what one of his advisers described as a regularly scheduled medical checkup, but an official in his office said it was treatment for exhaustion.