Where is the US going?

[mindlight]

Good observations, but the last sentence is not really the case I think. America probably could not keep out in practice (at least not today, because of psychology), but in practical terms of the being-able it could easily simply be powerful and neutral and ignore war overseas if it chose too, for instance by deterrence and the ability to shoot down missles it already has. Of course a neutrality would require not reacting overly when some other nation sinks a ship with Americans on it...which has often provoked America quite easily in the past. But if America were truly determined to stay out of a world war, even letting allies get harmed, then if could effectively do so, and would not be really practically attackable in a really serious way, past provocations on small scales of killing hundreds or a few thousands at most, not at the current time. So a real isolationism (not just nominal) could be done, after all. I mention this because it's a real and intriguing possibility, if enough change happened in views over the next 5 or 15 years. Of course, even with isolationism ascendent, still an isolationist president would also be required. I sometimes wonder about the next world war, if we might indeed be able to stay largely out. I wouldn't bet on it though.

There is an institutional momentum for globalisation in Americas military with its global bases and carrier groups, in its corporate supply chains and global marketing strategies. Also America kind of thrives on being centre stage. Neutrality requires an anonymity that does not play well with American elites.

But 911 demonstrated in the same manner as Pearl Harbour did that splendid isolation is not the practical option in the modern age. You could not stop all nukes, bioweopans etc from getting through, you are vulnerable and therefore connected to the rest of us. You fight out there so you do not have to fight at home.

 

[FireDragon76]

America has been under textbook destabilization for the past 25 years. That is the end-game for America. The only reason why it has taken so long is because America got a boost from a destabilized USSR. But, now that there is no more economic incentive unique to America (i.e. globalization,) there is only one direction for a nation built on political and financial credit to go.

Trump's policies are like trying to douse a fire in gasoline. His policies can only further erode "political credit".

With our monetary system, ultimately it's all built on trust and goodwill. You dissolve the goodwill, your money is worthless and nobody will want to invest in your country, including Americans.

 

[Tanj]

China is polluting far more intensely than America and its green talk is long overdue. It accounts for 30% of global CO2 emissions by itself!!! Practice has yet to catch up with words.
List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia

China has ~30% of the world's population. Accounting for 30% of emissions seems about right. The US has ~5% of the world's population, and accounts for 15% of emissions, triple China on a per capita basis.

The word "intensely" does not mean what you think it means.

 

[Kaon]

There is an institutional momentum for globalisation in Americas military with its global bases and carrier groups, in its corporate supply chains and global marketing strategies. Also America kind of thrives on being centre stage. Neutrality requires an anonymity that does not play well with American elites.

But 911 demonstrated in the same manner as Pearl Harbour did that splendid isolation is not the practical option in the modern age. You could not stop all nukes, bioweopans etc from getting through, you are vulnerable and therefore connected to the rest of us. You fight out there so you do not have to fight at home.

A nation cannot sustain being a war-nation for too long. Resources get depleted, and morale goes way down in the fog of war - due to the many ways threats can get in that do not relate to a hot war.

All empires get tested by collapse. To survive collapse, a nation has to have a strong, and somewhat united people. Do you think the vehement ignorance of American atrocities (to Americans, by Americans) is going to help that unity, or play into the destabilization?

Eventually, the fight will be at home - and it will be devastating to the unprepared, complacent population. This is historic; it has happened several times before in history. We may be told to never forget history, but we always repeat it. It is the degeneracy of humanity to repeat subtle and obvious faults.

 

[PreviouslySeeking...]

Um, disintegration would be my guess. I question the long term stability of my country.

 

[Ringo84]

Down a certain unpleasant smelling river. Or, if you like, to a certain place in a handbasket.
Ringo

 

[durangodawood]

......to a certain place in a handbasket.

Not in a handbasket. In a coal-rolling F-350 dually with a 10" lift and custom wheels.

 

[Petros2015]

I agree. I think Trump is the result of a perfect storm of unfortunate events. I think there is every reason to believe this ugly chapter of American history - with its overtones of xenophobia and anti-intellectualism- will be a short one.

I'm not so sure. There's too much disinformation. People seem to prefer demonization and hypocrisy to facts. There's almost a conspiracy of conspiracy theories at this point. I'm not sure what happened, but I feel like the value of truth went out the window in favor of the value of 'tell me what my side wants to hear.' Which is usually about how bad the other side is, and how good their side is. People will be at each others throats eventually.

I think we've lost or are losing the capacity for self-reflection. It means we double-down on our wrongs instead of correcting them. It means we attack anyone who would suggest such a thing. If the country as a whole does not care about truth, and facts, if it prefers opinion pieces, it will fall. And worse than fall, it will do anything it pleases to anyone it pleases and call it Good.

 

[Halbhh]

I'm not so sure. There's too much disinformation. People seem to prefer demonization and hypocrisy to facts. There's almost a conspiracy of conspiracy theories at this point. I'm not sure what happened, but I feel like the value of truth went out the window in favor of the value of 'tell me what my side wants to hear.' Which is usually about how bad the other side is, and how good their side is. People will be at each others throats eventually.

I think we've lost or are losing the capacity for self-reflection. It means we double-down on our wrongs instead of correcting them. It means we attack anyone who would suggest such a thing. If the country as a whole does not care about truth, and facts, if it prefers opinion pieces, it will fall. And worse than fall, it will do anything it pleases to anyone it pleases and call it Good.

Trump has tried hard to make the NYTimes the "failing" NYTimes, but its readership is up.

Digital only subscriptions up 46% in 2017. Total revenue up 8%.

I'm not so sure we are post reality.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

It's not just America. Europe is moving in a similar direction...

 

[Halbhh]

It's not just America. Europe is moving in a similar direction...

I'm just reading more on that --
A Warning From Europe: The Worst Is Yet to Come

 

[OldWiseGuy]

(1) To reiterate the point, which the article you post doesn't argue against, the trade deficit is not related to federal debt. This is why I posted the methods used to calculate the current account deficit, which has to do with trade flows, not federal borrowing. I note neither you nor the article you are using can argue against the actual methods used in calculating the current account. Using your reasoning, we could equivalently say that the US is running a capital account surplus, and that this too must be because of federal borrowing. Of course, that doesn't seem to make sense. Are you also able to explain the corollary: how federal borrowing causes a capital account surplus? (note: if you're running a current account deficit, ie. a trade deficit, then by definition you're running a capital account surplus). Are you also able to explain how some other countries (such as Japan) are able to maintain a current account surplus yet have more national debt (at least in terms of % of GDP) than the US? Are you also able to explain periods of time where the US was running a current account surplus yet had to resort of federal borrowing (eg, 1980-1982, 1990-1991?

Of course not. It's a nice theory to think that federal borrowing is somehow related to the current account deficit, but it's just a theory.

(2) So we have a few things and counter examples which the article you post cannot explain (and does not attempt to explain) which should be sufficient to demonstrate that the trade deficit isn't related to the federal debt. But further, to try to establish the argument made in the article we would also require more information. You would have to show that tax revenues would have been higher had production not shifted in the ways mentioned in the article, that those venues would have been sufficiently high enough to fund the federal debt, and that federal debt would not continue to outpace federal spending (I mean, why can't federal spending outpace federal revenues and there also be a current account surplus?). He would also have to account for economic growth, and thus increases in tax revenues, in other sectors (which he doesn't do), net effects in manufacturing, gains in productivity, increases in GDP, etc.. I'm probably leaving out a bunch of analysis that would have to be done for the simple reason that the author of the article seemingly isn't aware of his argument's problems.

Call me skeptical, but I don't think the author of that article can prove it anyway. In short, because the federal debt is unrelated to current account surpluses or deficits, it's very difficult to try to establish that there happens to be a unique case/relationship between the two in the case of the US. The article you post has a paragraph, which doesn't qualify for analysis. It's easy to concoct a story that seems to make sense, but in reality it's harder to prove, especially when the two variables in question have no necessary relationship.

Many economists make a strong connection between the trade deficit and the national debt, and I agree with them.

 

[Sketcher]

Australia has recognised China as a more stable trading partner with a responsible program around Carbon emissions, and less erratic foreign policy.

Americans who visit China have told me about the air being much, much worse. As in, runners couldn't run when they were over there, and keeping a runner away from their running fix is no small task. How China can be perceived as more responsible with carbon emissions makes no sense to me at all.

It has now formed closer alliances with Russia.

Our relations have been said to be at an "all-time low" so I'm not seeing where this has any credibility.

 

[joshua 1 9]

All I see is people will be paying more for things.

They are paying more because of tariffs that the government is collecting that they can use to pay the national debt. If people do not want to pay more then quit wasting their money on junk and invest it in our growing economy.

 

[joshua 1 9]

It would appear that America is wanting to step back as a world leader

We are starting to set a right example. American is just as much if not more of a leader. Our culture is one of our biggest exports. The movie and music business. We lead the world in research and development. WE lead the world in Education. There are things that Europe does better then we do, but not in the economic arena.

Americans are constantly being under estimated. We had a foreign exchange student from China that was always laughing at Americans and how lazy he thought we were. But when he got to college he had a lot of problems trying to keep up and realized that he was the one that needed to take things a lot more serious. People are quick and easy to judge others for what they are guilty of.

If Americans have a weakness it is in not wanting to keep up with the latest technology and developments and go back to the old way of doing things. We do not care as much about modern as we use to. Other countries are more interesting in being modern. Still we like the research and development. The university here is a leader in polymer science and the development of materials that can be used in 3D printers. They are working with another university that is designing the printers themselves. When my son was in High School he wanted a class on 3D printers. So I worked with the school to set that class up for him and whoever else was interested. It is still a primitive technology and they still have glitches to work out but there are people that seem to be interested in working on it.

I have a friend here that did the research and development on an affordable medicine for babies with pre mature lung development. The medicine they were using was to expensive. So now third world nations have more affordable medicine available to them.

If we are going to do the research and development then we should be the ones to benefit from our work and not be expected to give it all away.

 

[Zoii]

Americans who visit China have told me about the air being much, much worse. As in, runners couldn't run when they were over there, and keeping a runner away from their running fix is no small task. How China can be perceived as more responsible with carbon emissions makes no sense to me at all.


Our relations have been said to be at an "all-time low" so I'm not seeing where this has any credibility.

Well you've highlighted a very fine example. You may remember the lead up to the Beijing Olympics and the government had to forbid traffic movement in order to gain some air clarity. Air pollution was very high. What has followed is truly incredible. Unlike your nation and mine, which struggles to put into effect a strategic plan that goes beyond a decade, their's is a one hundred year strategic plan. You really have to admire and applaud that they can do that - I guess that's the upside of having a communist government - you decide what needs to be done for the country and that's that - it's pursued unabated.

Anyway as part of that strategic plan is management of carbon emissions. By far, their program to have a negative carbon footprint makes the rest of us seem pathetic. It would be fascinating to hear your friends' opinion next decade should they return. Lets hope their program is successful - they will be a model for us all.

 

[mindlight]

A nation cannot sustain being a war-nation for too long. Resources get depleted, and morale goes way down in the fog of war - due to the many ways threats can get in that do not relate to a hot war.

All empires get tested by collapse. To survive collapse, a nation has to have a strong, and somewhat united people. Do you think the vehement ignorance of American atrocities (to Americans, by Americans) is going to help that unity, or play into the destabilization?

Eventually, the fight will be at home - and it will be devastating to the unprepared, complacent population. This is historic; it has happened several times before in history. We may be told to never forget history, but we always repeat it. It is the degeneracy of humanity to repeat subtle and obvious faults.

The major long term issues for the American economy are debt levels and the inefficiency of health care spending and provision. The political process seems unable to find a way to balance its books and come to some kind of sensible approach to health care (it costs twice as much in the USA as in comparable developed countries). This is one reason I was not massively upset with Trump being elected despite his obvious character flaws and apparent unfitness to govern. Sometimes in a broken system you need a fool to get stuff done being the logic here. Whether that has worked out is an open question however.

But the American empire is a long way from collapse. Its military strength is unparalleled in human history and unequalled by any other power or potential combination of powers. With its various alliances with Europe and Japan it carries an economic weight that dominates the world and its culture of freedom is still widely recognised. There is still a substantial spiritual weight to the Christian population of the USA even if its influence faded a little in the Obama years. Also Americans have demonstrated a remarkable capacity to surprise us with new visions. IN the last 20 years the explosion of various new kinds of IT initiative and company has been dominated by America for instance. I would not write them off yet. In the next 20 years it looks likely that it will be American owned companies that will dominate in new industries like robotics, genetics, computing and space flight.

Short of a major war I do not see America losing its leadership position in the next generation even despite its economic weakness.

 

[Sketcher]

Well you've highlighted a very fine example. You may remember the lead up to the Beijing Olympics and the government had to forbid traffic movement in order to gain some air clarity. Air pollution was very high. What has followed is truly incredible. Unlike your nation and mine, which struggles to put into effect a strategic plan that goes beyond a decade, their's is a one hundred year strategic plan. You really have to admire and applaud that they can do that - I guess that's the upside of having a communist government - you decide what needs to be done for the country and that's that - it's pursued unabated.

Anyway as part of that strategic plan is management of carbon emissions. By far, their program to have a negative carbon footprint makes the rest of us seem pathetic. It would be fascinating to hear your friends' opinion next decade should they return. Lets hope their program is successful - they will be a model for us all.

My friend's new wife is Chinese, so I'll probably hear from him over the years. I do have my doubts about sustaining an effort over a hundred years. Mao's government had to abort several ambitious plans because they were not working. And of course, their economic priorities will be first, and they are looking to grow that economy. A big part of that will be increasing fossil fuel usage.

 

[mindlight]

China has ~30% of the world's population. Accounting for 30% of emissions seems about right. The US has ~5% of the world's population, and accounts for 15% of emissions, triple China on a per capita basis.

The word "intensely" does not mean what you think it means.

China has 18.5% (1415million out of 7650 million) of the worlds population compared to Americas 4.3%. But the actual developed population of China is about the same as the USA (the rest are peasants). These guys pollute twice as much as Americans do on a per capita basis. So as China continues to develop it will need to deal with its environmental issues and the urgency of that is made clear by the speed with which the country is developing

 

[Zoii]

We are starting to set a right example. American is just as much if not more of a leader. Our culture is one of our biggest exports. The movie and music business. We lead the world in research and development. WE lead the world in Education. There are things that Europe does better then we do, but not in the economic arena.

Americans are constantly being under estimated. We had a foreign exchange student from China that was always laughing at Americans and how lazy he thought we were. But when he got to college he had a lot of problems trying to keep up and realized that he was the one that needed to take things a lot more serious. People are quick and easy to judge others for what they are guilty of.

If Americans have a weakness it is in not wanting to keep up with the latest technology and developments and go back to the old way of doing things. We do not care as much about modern as we use to. Other countries are more interesting in being modern. Still we like the research and development. The university here is a leader in polymer science and the development of materials that can be used in 3D printers. They are working with another university that is designing the printers themselves. When my son was in High School he wanted a class on 3D printers. So I worked with the school to set that class up for him and whoever else was interested. It is still a primitive technology and they still have glitches to work out but there are people that seem to be interested in working on it.

I have a friend here that did the research and development on an affordable medicine for babies with pre mature lung development. The medicine they were using was to expensive. So now third world nations have more affordable medicine available to them.

If we are going to do the research and development then we should be the ones to benefit from our work and not be expected to give it all away.

You've raised some interesting points though I should correct you on a few.

The USA is NOT leading the world in education: Not even close. In the OECD countries within Maths, Literacy and Science its ranked #15 behind Iceland.
World education rankings: which country does best at reading, maths and science?
In subjects such as geography its worse.

In terms of Entertainment - Hollywood is very influential - but its not the leader as you suggest - That title goes to Bollywood.

In terms of research and Development I agree that USA EU and Asia are performing highly.

But the standards in the areas you mention really are adrift of the point I was making in the OP. Really the question I put to you concerns the shift in global influence, to shrinking back into nationalist/ protectionist thinking with trade war as it's banner, mixed and erratic foreign policy, and a shift away from its traditional allies. I put forward how people outside the USA view that - My question is more around whats going on for those who live in the USA as I understand, as you suggest, that these tactics are lauded.