Poll: Is America too big to fail?

[JSFLY]

Heres the question:

Just as citigroup was too big to fail with respect to America, is America too big to fail with respect to the global economy?

For example, if our national debt was 20 Trillion and China stopped lending to us because they realized we'd never be able to pay back them back, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot because our over consumption is what's driving their economic growth.

What do ya'll think?

 

[Craig234]

It's funny you ask this now, I was just thinking about this similarly regaridng the Vietnam thread, how 'America is too powerful to be held accountable for aggressive war'.

In answer to your question, I vote no, not yet anyway.

I think it's too big to fail quickly, but not to fail at all.

However, what's more likely than 'to fail' - no one can 'defeat us' - is for our nation to degrade into a shell of what it should be, think the right-wing agenda to go to pre-FDR.

The Bush years alone - where our principles were often made a mockery of, with his hyenas cheering all the way - are a taste of what can happen, if things go wrong.

What seems more likely, though, is for American to face economic weakness, problems from big debt, threats to the world's reliance on the dollar as the global standard, and an increasing reliance on our military, which is so far ahead of all others, as our advantages in wealth are reduced. One thing you hear little about is the other direction - if the US increases its power globally, increasin empire, the ramifications.

 

[bamacre]

Thinking the rest of the world depends on us economically is nothing but BS. Will they endure pain? Yes, but it surely won't last forever. Our over-consumption of resources just equates to an under-consumption of resources elsewhere.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Thinking the rest of the world depends on us economically is nothing but BS. Will they endure pain? Yes, but it surely won't last forever. Our over-consumption of resources just equates to an under-consumption of resources elsewhere.

If our aid packages dried up economies would be the least of our problems.

 

[babylon5]

'Fail' might be too drastic. But other countries are slowly rising as we spent money like there is no tomorrow as our expense increases. Something will have to give way sooner or later.

 

[First]

Yes it is, in a way. The rest of the world is dependent on the U.S.'s health and, in a way but to a lesser degree obviously, the U.S. is dependent on the rest of the world. This is why you continue to see the dollar not fail and not see decoupling as a few nutters here predicted. Bond markets and equity markets know better.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Ask the Roman Empire.

Ask Great Britain. Remember, "Make the World England"? Or what about, "The sun never sets on the British Empire".

The answer is, no.

We can fail. We will fail. We are failing.

 

[artikk]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Ask the Roman Empire.

Ask Great Britain. Remember, "Make the World England"? Or what about, "The sun never sets on the British Empire".

The answer is, no.

We can fail. We will fail. We are failing.

The problem is you're looking at the US as a mercantilist empire but I think not. It is a superpower for now, but surely not an empire. It will however lose a substantial amount of political and economic influence over the long run though and probably become a slightly oversized 1st world country.

 

[Genx87]

We will fail at some point in history. I am coming to the realization it may be within my lifetime. The question of course is what will the country look like after the failure?

 

[Titan]

Depends what you mean by fail. Corporations are not measured by the same metrics as countries.

The US will not be insolvent as long as we have military power. It also helps that we are basically they right-hand of the IMF going around and bankrupting 3rd world countries. Our national debt doesn't matter if we keep playing that role.

As long as we are the economic and military cock-of-the-walk, we will be fine.

We the people will gradually have a lower standard of living. But the business of the US will not fail, since our business was bought, paid for, and moved offshore a long time ago.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

The world has survived many more empires more powerful than us failing, we'd just be another chapter in a history book.

 

[Jaskalas]

The bigger they are the harder they fall. We're in for hell.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

yes, just like the titanic

 

[Schadenfroh]

We can fail, but we are so interconnected now that the failing of any major economic power will destroy the rest of them economically.

Economic Mutually Assured Destruction

 

[Babbles]

We are too big to fail. . . at least for now. Economy is too big, R&D is too big, and arguably if the U.S. was to somehow "fail" then all of those treasury bonds that other countries have been buying up would be worthless.

They sure as shit don't want that to happen.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: JSFLY
Heres the question:

Just as citigroup was too big to fail with respect to America, is America too big to fail with respect to the global economy?

For example, if our national debt was 20 Trillion and China stopped lending to us because they realized we'd never be able to pay back them back, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot because our over consumption is what's driving their economic growth.

What do ya'll think?

Short memory, huh? Remember the U.S.S.R.?

 

[JSFLY]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: JSFLY
Heres the question:

Just as citigroup was too big to fail with respect to America, is America too big to fail with respect to the global economy?

For example, if our national debt was 20 Trillion and China stopped lending to us because they realized we'd never be able to pay back them back, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot because our over consumption is what's driving their economic growth.

What do ya'll think?

Short memory, huh? Remember the U.S.S.R.?

Don't understand why you'd make this comparison.

The old soviet Union did not exist in an internet driven interconnected global economy.
The old soviet Union was not the economic powerhouse America is today.

 

[Craig234]

What's sad is, 'it didn't have to be like this'.

If FDR hadn't happened, and the exposion in the middle class and its well-being, few could have beleived that was an option. The same old poverty that had the average wage at $10,000 in 1900 (adjusted for inflation) could have continued - but the fact is, the policies did happen and the modern middle class was created, so it's clear.

If JFK had not been assassinated, if we had not had the Viet Nam war, if we had not had Reagan start the nation down the road of changing our balanced society into one heavily tilted to the wealthy, and the ideology of de-regulation paving the way for crises from the Savings and Loan disaster to the current crisis driven by Wall Street excesses with derivatives, with the tax rates lowered from the 60's and 70's rates of a max of 70% to under 40%, and the skyrocketing national debt threatening our standing...

The US could have been so much stronger but for the victories of the few to get even richer at the expense of the nation.

Ths history has been filled with people who warned about this but did not prevail politically, for the most part, and their predictions are proven accurate.

While JFK's famous sogan was that a rising tide lifts all boats - he could have added a requirmenet if the taxes are set to allow it - the modern Republicans' slogan should reflect the lowering tide that's coming, and the way that they figured out how to have the rising tide all go to a few at the top for the last 25 years.

 

[Cogman]

It somewhat depends on what you mean by fail. Rome fell, but it wasn't like "Rome was here but now its gone." Instead it was more like a slow splitting and dividing into oblivion. I could see the US begin to dissolve like that, or change into another state to the point where it no long resembles the original government.

However, on things for sure, there is no such thing as being too big to fail.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Craig234
What's sad is, 'it didn't have to be like this'.

If FDR hadn't happened, and the exposion in the middle class and its well-being, few could have beleived that was an option. The same old poverty that had the average wage at $10,000 in 1900 (adjusted for inflation) could have continued - but the fact is, the policies did happen and the modern middle class was created, so it's clear.

If JFK had not been assassinated, if we had not had the Viet Nam war, if we had not had Reagan start the nation down the road of changing our balanced society into one heavily tilted to the wealthy, and the ideology of de-regulation paving the way for crises from the Savings and Loan disaster to the current crisis driven by Wall Street excesses with derivatives, with the tax rates lowered from the 60's and 70's rates of a max of 70% to under 40%, and the skyrocketing national debt threatening our standing...

The US could have been so much stronger but for the victories of the few to get even richer at the expense of the nation.

Ths history has been filled with people who warned about this but did not prevail politically, for the most part, and their predictions are proven accurate.

While JFK's famous sogan was that a rising tide lifts all boats - he could have added a requirmenet if the taxes are set to allow it - the modern Republicans' slogan should reflect the lowering tide that's coming, and the way that they figured out how to have the rising tide all go to a few at the top for the last 25 years.

The root of the problem started before Reagan.

 

[Atheus]

Anyone answering 'yes' is a complete idiot and has never read a history book.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234
What's sad is, 'it didn't have to be like this'.

If FDR hadn't happened, and the exposion in the middle class and its well-being, few could have beleived that was an option. The same old poverty that had the average wage at $10,000 in 1900 (adjusted for inflation) could have continued - but the fact is, the policies did happen and the modern middle class was created, so it's clear.

If JFK had not been assassinated, if we had not had the Viet Nam war, if we had not had Reagan start the nation down the road of changing our balanced society into one heavily tilted to the wealthy, and the ideology of de-regulation paving the way for crises from the Savings and Loan disaster to the current crisis driven by Wall Street excesses with derivatives, with the tax rates lowered from the 60's and 70's rates of a max of 70% to under 40%, and the skyrocketing national debt threatening our standing...

The US could have been so much stronger but for the victories of the few to get even richer at the expense of the nation.

Ths history has been filled with people who warned about this but did not prevail politically, for the most part, and their predictions are proven accurate.

While JFK's famous sogan was that a rising tide lifts all boats - he could have added a requirmenet if the taxes are set to allow it - the modern Republicans' slogan should reflect the lowering tide that's coming, and the way that they figured out how to have the rising tide all go to a few at the top for the last 25 years.

The root of the problem started before Reagan.

It depends on your scale. Since I look at JFK's government and say 'that's fine', while you look at it and say 'way too big', I presume, it's a matter of opinion.

You should be able to agree with me about the *relative* changes that began with Reagan, though, making it at least much worse, whatever your opinion of before.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Atheus
Anyone answering 'yes' is a complete idiot and has never read a history book.

While I answered no, and have read at least one or two history books, I think you are too harsh on the yes side.

With 'modern techhnology', the power of the governments to control and to remain in power and prevent revolution has vastly increased over time.

It's not the same situation as in most of human history in terms of the vioability of revolution.

I've written in this forum that in my opinion the days of any ability to overthrow the US government view popular violet revolution are over, it will not happen.

As the weaponry, communications technology, propaganda, tactics, intelligence gathering capabilityes, and more have hugely increased, the viability of revolution has plummeted.

It's not static. You can't really compare the ability of the modern US to hold onto power with the ability of earlier empires to do so.

The world is headed towards a regional consolidation of power - Americas, Europe, Asia - never seen in world history. And that's not easily ended.

As long as the US - with its military spending about the same as the rest of the 94% of the world population combined - has a good hand in the power structure, it can very effectively hold on to power, even if it is in a bad situation that in earlier times might have threated its retaining power.

Hence my prediction having more to do with 'decline cna change', not a 'failed state'.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Craig234
As the weaponry, communications technology, propaganda, tactics, intelligence gathering capabilityes, and more have hugely increased, the viability of revolution has plummeted.

I don't agree with this, we modern people are not special, we're not the end of the evolution of humanity or something. In fact I would say the gap between the ruling classes (or whatever you want to call it) and everyone else is smaller than it's ever been. Malnourished peasants with wooden clubs have pulled armoured knights off their horses and beat them to death before. Besides this is all based on the idea that the army would fight against the revolution rather than participate in it.

As long as the US - with its military spending about the same as the rest of the 94% of the world population combined - has a good hand in the power structure, it can very effectively hold on to power, even if it is in a bad situation that in earlier times might have threated its retaining power.

I looked that up because I couldn't believe it - most numbers say the USA has about 1/3 of total world military spending. Europe spends more than half of that and it's going up. China will overtake both of us in time. Not that I anticipate a world war but it won't be long before the USA wouldn't be sure of winning such a thing should it happen. Much more likely than actual war would be a drop in international influence as China starts to flex it's muscles.

Hence my prediction having more to do with 'decline cna change', not a 'failed state'.

Sure, I wouldn't expect 'America' to fall completely into insignificance, but the entity called 'the USA' could easily be replaced by something else. You mentioned regional consolidation of power yourself - if the major power was the 'American union' rather than any country therein wouldn't that constitute the fall of the USA? I mean there is still a country called Britain, and we're very happy with it, but the British Empire is gone never to return - the future is the EU.

 

[MovingTarget]

Without the US, the world will go on functioning, albeit not very well following the aftermath of a 'failure' of the USA, but it would recover. No nation is eternal or has the clout to permanently bring the rest of the world economy down. Even if it did 'fail', then it would still live on in some form - either fractured into smaller nation-state-economies or absorbed into a larger entity (Greater Canada? ).