The End of Influence

For as long as many can remember, the United States has been the country with money, influence, and power. But all that is changing, write Brad DeLong and Stephen Cohen in their new book, The End of Influence. FP excerpts exclusively here.

BY BRAD DELONG, STEPHEN COHEN | DECEMBER 23, 2009

For more than a quarter century now the countries of the world have been dreaming the neoliberals' dream. They have been trying to shrink their states back to their core competencies to promote economic efficiency, global economic integration, and growth, and to slash through red tape, rent-seeking, and simple corruption. They have been actively privatizing state holdings. They have hugely reduced their ownership and their active involvement in "national champion" companies. They have cut back on interventions to affect market outcomes and on regulation to scrutinize and control market players.

But now they are waking up. And the neoliberals' dream is at an end.

To understand why, we need to journey back to the mid-20th century. The coming of World War II ensured that whatever money still remained in Britain left quickly. Franklin Delano Roosevelt ruled an isolationist country that he wished to cajole into engaging in the war with Hitler as early and as completely as he could. But part of Roosevelt's strategy (and a not-altogether unwelcome consequence, for many who worked in the State, War, and Navy Building-a Victorian-era structure just west of the White House that looked like a French brothel) was to make Britain broke before American taxpayers' money was committed in any way to the fight against Hitler. Only after Britain had sold off the family silver to pay for the nozzle would America "lend" Britain its garden hose to fight the Hitlerian fire.

America did come to the aid of its closest, cherished, and most important embattled overseas ally after Britain was broke. The Grand Alliance was the great moment in the grand story of the English-speaking nations. It does remain Churchillian in the inherited grandeur of its narrative. And America did come to the rescue of England, and together-with enormous although unloved assistance from the Red Army of the Soviet Union and Josef Stalin-America did save the world from the horrors of the Nazis. But while we were gearing up to come to the rescue, we squeezed the British, and when World War II was over, the United States, not Britain, had the money. When the British borrowed money from us, it had to be repaid in dollars, not in sterling. And imports into Britain had to be rationed well into the 1950s.

Will the United States be similarly squeezed? No. We are not engaged in a total war. We do not domestically produce only 1,200 calories of food per citizen per day. We are still by far the world's largest national economy. The United States is technologically powerful and resourceful and is still the center of world finance. World finance is still transacted in dollars. And the United States remains the world's only military superpower, whatever that may turn out to mean.

But the United States is losing the money. America is now massively in debt to foreigners and will be more in debt with each passing year as far into the future as forecasters can see. It will not be squeezed as it squeezed Britain, but it will be constrained.

HOANG DINH NAM/AFP/Getty Images

 

Brad Delong is an economist at the University of California, Berkeley and pens the economics blog, Brad DeLong’s Semi-Daily Journal. Stephen Cohen is a professor of regional planning at the University of California, Berkeley and co-director of the Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy. Their new book, The End of Influence, will be available from Basic Books on January 1.

Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

RKERG

2:48 AM ET

December 24, 2009

Well,

There was a time back in the 80's,
when you couldn't pick up a newspaper or magazine without seeing an article about how Japan was the new international economic heavyweight and how, before long,
Japan was going to own just about everything. How did that turn out?
No offense but, regardless of how good the future looks for China right now, do not underestimate the ability
of people to screw things up.

 

NORBOOSE

12:20 PM ET

December 24, 2009

Were going to see 3 world powers and several regional powers

America just cant be the only superpower for long, its an unstable structure. That doesnt mean any one country will totally replace us, but Russia and China will increasingly come to rival us. This can be seen clearly in the way they compete in neutral countries for influence. This worldstage will be more subtle than the cold war, all three nations are at least competant enough to know how pointless being openly agressive towards eachother is. All three have potentially apocalyptic arsenals, and will never ever seriously consider abandoning them. These arsenals means that they could simply never be defeated by an outside force, so they will work subtlely to gradually undermine the others. Since overt force will become much more "expensive," the importance of regional powers like India will be much greater than it was in earlier eras of geopolitics. Im not praising or condeming this system, but I am very confident thats how the near future will unfold. Overall I say it has about a 15% chance of ending in doomsday warfare leading to an unpleasent, yet kind of awesome, post-apocalyptic landscape and an 85% chance of being stable enough to last around until people start to inhabit other planets, or get replaced by robots, or some other distant future event that would fundamentally change humanities dynamics.

 

FREETRADER

4:11 PM ET

December 27, 2009

No.

China, because of the increasing size of its economy and (although not on a per capita basis) overall wealth, will be a stronger player in the future and is likely to be a reasonably strong 'second power' over the next 40 years. As such, it will be able to exert a checking influence on American policy and serve as a possible magnet for smaller powers to rally around, if need be. But Russia? Give me a break. Russia is smaller, politically, and economically, than Mexico. It is mired in a 1000 year history of (at best) inept authoritarianism, and its influence is in permanent decline. It has only one real asset -- a pile of nuclear weapons left over from the Cold War. Those are less useful then they seem, since, although useful for political blackmail and brinksmanship, cannot ever be used.

The real story of the last 20 years (and the next 20) is the decline of Russia into international near-irrelevance.

 

MUSTNOTSLEEP14

9:45 PM ET

December 29, 2009

Russia

Russia is a xenophobic nation with a decreasing population. It is ruled by inept oligarchs who care simply about staying in power. It has also had much difficulty in making the transition to a market economy, and even now, Russia's power, like that of Arab nations, is simply in its energy reserves. Russia also has an alarmingly low life expectancy and is not planning on diversifying its economy. All Russia has remaining is its nuclear weapons and its arms trade. To suggest that Russia will remain a global power is absurd.

 

JPWREL

3:24 PM ET

December 24, 2009

Couple of things: 1- The

Couple of things:

1- The authors contention that China does have alternatives to holding dollars is demonstrably wrong. China is now and will continue to purchase with their dollar reserves vast quantities of scarce global resources which likely will appreciate in value to one extent or another. We will continue to see it’s repercussions in metals, fertilizers, oil, gas and other commodities on into the future.

2- What the authors contend is American ‘culture’ is really little more than hyper-consumerism devoid of intellectual content and hardy an uplifting service to mankind. It is more often than not a vulgar obsession with materialism beyond reason which compromises the financial integrity of its victims.

3- While the authors are quite correct in praising the American graduate schools and research universities as the envy of the world it is often done at the expense of a poorly served undergraduate community.

 

FREETRADER

4:18 PM ET

December 27, 2009

let's see...

1.) the authors' point is that China is trapped into holding US dollars that may decpreciate in value. If they do, they will obtain less on the world market for those dollars. That is thte POINT. What the authors' do not mention is that China, by holding its currency artificically low, is absolutely complicit in this bargain, and its protests are simply smoke and mirrors.

2.) your view of American culture as being, from Twain and Melville to Hemingway and Fitzgerald, completely worthless, is noted and yet, shall I say, not very convincing.

3.) Really? Go to China and see how their undergraduates are 'served', even in elite universities. Or practically any other country except for the UK, Canada, or Australia. Then see if you can make that statement with a straight face.

 

3ARABSOFT

2:36 AM ET

December 26, 2009

i thank google to bring me

i thank google to bring me here and very thanks to you for the great article
its very helpful to me
happy new year
??? ????

 

DANIEL

1:47 AM ET

December 27, 2009

I think the United States and

I think the United States and western Europe will have to accept the addition of new seats to the world power table, but a lot of people seem to want to think that the clock is ticking for American power. Despite its shortcomings in the Middle East, I don't see an end to American influence any time soon.

 

NORBOOSE

11:08 AM ET

December 27, 2009

Western Europe Lost Its Seats Decades Ago

I actually dont have a big problem with your opinion, but I would strongly argue that Western Europe faces a vastly different situation than America. Europe was eclipsed decades ago. The only things Europe have going for them are a high per capita wealth and American Strategic Defense to rely on. Japan is more economically powerful than any Euro-country. Both China and Russia are far more powerful and influential than the entirety of Europe. If the EU were to function as one country, it might, possibly, one day function on the same level as America, China, and Russia, but it has no indication of doing that. Do not confuse per capita income with the true influence of a nation.

 

MUSTNOTSLEEP14

9:54 PM ET

December 29, 2009

EU Power

If the EU ever becomes one real country, then they would have a combined GDP of $18T, more than that of the US. But the UK would never allow this, as this would be an official declaration that their country is no longer important. UK desperately tries to cling to the notion that their empire is still alive and that their input matters. I imagine this is why they cling to the US so much, because having this "special relationship" is better than fully admitting that their place in world affairs is almost meaningless. Until the UK fully changes track, something that will not happen in the near future, the EU will be appropriately just a vassal state of the US.

 

NKT

8:21 AM ET

December 28, 2009

3arabsoft

I don't think 3arabsoft
the United States and western Europe will have to accept the addition of new seats to the world power table

 

GEOGE

11:46 AM ET

December 28, 2009

Irony

The article concludes with unintended irony:

"The culture created by America and exported by its movies is not gone; it's not even going. It has simply gone universal .."

I think this is called hegemony, especially if accompanied by hard power. And Delong rightfully recognizes that it is now "universal".

If China offers goods at levels which are not profitable for them to manufacture but for a rigged currency - USA will cheerfully borrow all that China requires to lend to keep the scheme afloat. There will be an offset equal to this borrowing in terms of assets acquired by the USA from China well below their intrinsic values. China is being hollowed out and the USA is gaining greater wealth. The "debt" is only an indication of how seriously far China is over their ski tips.

In other words this transaction is for China at best a wash, and likely it is China putting itself into even greater peril and untenable status. It is a classic example of Jane Jacobs "transactions of decline" where national account covers up critical flaws of the urban and regional makeup of the economy.

I think Delong is confusing the current financial signs he notes as decline when it is in fact a massive reorganization of the 21st C into the USA world hegemon's time-era. All the signs he perceives as showing decline are in fact birthing pains of an incredible USA dominance to come of the likes never experienced in history. I am not suggesting this is a obvious good.

Rome lasted several hundred years at ever greater size and reach after their first signs of decline.

 

GEOGE

11:50 AM ET

December 28, 2009

...or another way to look at it

If you are the hegemon and borrow money from someone who's security is dependent upon your hardpower, you are basically borrowing money from yourself.

 

GPSADVOCATE

1:29 AM ET

December 29, 2009

Geoge Good point

A very short yet effective point!:) which is why on a grander economic scale, as the article said, The US and China must learn to work together on many different arenas.

 

GEOGE

10:25 AM ET

December 29, 2009

Major risk to this "devil's deal"

China has a "wizard's apprentice" situation going on. GPS it is crucial that China and the USA work out of this together and the USA does not too gleefully take underpriced product and leave China holding the bag in terms of eventually livid populace, script in the world's reserve currency, and wracked environment. Japan did this in the 1920s and 1930s and it undeniably led to Pearl Harbor.

This will be difficult as one of the major problems is the likes of Delong have pumped up China, making their self preception completely out of any reasonable concept of reality.

China is about 1/3 the size most seem to think it is in terms of GDP. One way to look at it is that the excess capacity stated is really not there - China is working close to capacity now.

 

JANEYLOD

1:28 PM ET

January 5, 2010

money money...

Money, of course, is power. Because America had the money -- had it solidly, rightfully, self-assuredly, and durably -- for about 100 years, people all over the world wanted to be like Americans: successful, modern, loose-jointed, efficient, democratic, socially mobile, leggy, clean, powerful, and, of course, rich. Money brings a nation power, not just the power to command, or at least influence, the behavior of other nations.I think that it is due to the USA is such big, actually, all of us know it, that it is union of states...so what about comparing it with similar "unions" or numbers? It is very narrow view on the problem, from my point of view.Yours,Jane Ylod