It is certainly true that Wall Street, with its concentration on quarterly profits, has driven millions of jobs overseas. And Walmart is the poster boy for predatory action in the corporate area. However, Apple, with its subsidiary Foxconn, has gleefully jumped on the bandwagon, creating a new slave class in China.

If Americans cared about jobs, they would not shop at Walmart. Yet they do, in droves; they selfishly only think of themselves. They buy low-quality products for a lower price, which has a follow-on effect in that other companies are forced to lower their quality and prices in order to compete. The USA, and soon Europe, is running in reverse with respect to quality products available for the middle class. In the not-too-distant future, there will be stores for the lower middle class and ones for the elite, with ones in the middle having gone the way of the dinosaur.

Minor corrections. The contract manufacturer Foxconn is a Taiwanese company with factories in China. Foxconn succeeds with reasonably good quality to go with low cost and the manufacturing of electronic products is highly automated so low wages don't matter as much as they used to. What China, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan have are people who spend less than they earn who need a place to park their money. Their savings get invested in factories that make stuff. In contrast, the US is full of people trained to think that spending money to buy a house is an investment, not an expense, and committing future earnings to present day spending is OK. Borrowing money to spend beyond our means crowds out spending on factory buildings and industrial robots. We also give tax incentives to buy big houses and then tax corporate profits at relatively high rates. We Americans are responsible for personal and policy decisions that reward consumption at the expense of manufacturing.

Did Fortune miss Apple? Last I knew - it was the 3rd largest market cap in the world. I didn't even see it in the top 100.

You forgot to mention the greedy entitlement baby union members, excessive taxation, and regulation to go along with Walmart/Wallstreet's desire to procure cheap labor by outsourcing thousands of american jobs. There are still a few profitable car companies that provide excellent compensation packages and benefits, however they tend to reside in "right to work" states. Maybe you should conduct a case study on the city of Detroit, MI as it provides excellent examples on how to fail in business and education.

The collaborative efforts of both government and corporations have played viable roles that have relinquished a country's landscape where prosperity, optimism, ingenuity, and entrepreneurship once thrived.

Maybe it is over....it is quite ironic that the world's bastion of capitalism has not only decided to purchase the majority of its goods, but has also relinquished its massive amount of debt to be purchased by a global force know as communist China.

You should ask why the 2Ws moved across the Pacific to China? Why didn't they moved to your two large neighbors - Canada and Mexico? Why your backyard the South America countries hate you so much? Ask, Think, and Ask again!

China's rise is no surprise if you read history. Maybe it's a bit hard for you - a baby country of 300 year old (Oops, not even that!) to comprehend. But go read your history books and find out.

In 1790 China and India combined produced two thirds of world GDP (about 1/3 each). India produced most of the cloth, fiber and tea while China produced porcelain, furniture, and silks as well as many other manufactured goods. The Industrial Revolution, European Colonialism and the efficiencies of capitalist production spelled the doom for both the Chinese and Indian economies. By 1900 they combined produced 5% of World GDP. This imbalance has now been corrected.

In China it is an offense carrying a 12 year prison sentence to try to organize a union. Those foreign companies might have to pay a living wage at even Chinese standards and then China would no longer be able to offer slaves to the likes of Apple or Nike. Yeah, BAD old unions, without them YOU too would be fashioning widgets for 35 cents an hour. But dont despair, the newly minted Republican congress has the last of the unions in their sights for annihilation, soon you will have a slave class in the USA as well. That might be good if you are not one of them.
Chinese are not communists any longer.... they have morphed into corporate fascists. In 1933 Hitler outlawed Labor unions.

I found your comments annoying because you failed to properly attribute them to me (or, more accurately, Chalmers Johnson, et al). I know I started articulating some of them as long ago as 1975, but, no matter.

However, you are trying to talk to a society (contemporary U.S.) that according to Pew Research has a religious profile most similar in its fundamentalism to Iran. That fundamentalism allows it to feel comfortable giving money to a government (Israel) that practices institutional racism and promotes the free flow of contributions to organizations that systematically plan and execute the expansion of the settlement communities in as provocative a fashion as they can for purposes of intimidation. This while at the same time allowing significant parts of its internal energy economy to become increasingly dependent on the largess of the cultural and genetic allies of the people most directly and negatively impacted.

By the way, the U.S. is actually quite successful at educating its citizens in science and mathematics, but it then employs the largest percentage of them at institutions like the NSA, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency), which, economically speaking, is actually destructive of capital. So the largest concentration of at least our mathematical best and brightest are actively engaged is eroding the country's economic base.

I could go on about the absurdities of contemporary American life, but, the major point you need to grasp is the majority of Americans believe life under those absurdities is actually ordained by God. And, that's not new; Tocqueville was struck by that as long ago as 1827. I returned from experience, first in the Vietnam war, then education in Europe, wondering why Americans did things I absolutely could not understand by any rational arguments. Tocquey is actually the one that laid it out for me. Then I began to notice the number of Baptist, Lutheran, Jevhov Witness, Church of Christ, et al churches that exist in even small communities. It's there, it's real, DEAL WITH IT.

IF THE CHINESE CAN'T GET THE UPPER HAND WHEN FACED WITH THAT, THEY HAVE SOME REAL PROBLEMS, but Chinese culture is also highly prone to Hubris, e.g. 'Central Kingdom'(?). Pretty darn arrogant if you asked me. They may yet get smited.

During 30 years of Reaganism, America has built no new industries, sold its government to privateers, defunded its public education system and, perhaps worst of all, destroyed the social fabric that held its citizens in common cause. Faced with unprecedented economic competition from the rest of the world, we have resorted to mythologizing about "American exceptionalism," in which America need only stand still and the Christian god will cover our backsides. Thus we can continue destroying the environment and global warming will disappear. Thus the rich can pillage the Treasury, corrupt the government for its own ends, even convince a lot of people that taxes are unpatriotic, and we’ll soon be prosperous again. Any honest review of the last three decades shows a formerly great power living off the fumes of its past. Our standard of living has declined, our weakness is obvious to all, and everything we’re doing is making it worse. It’s hard to think of what would turn it around. Those of us who thought Obama might be a strong leader and counterweight to the Rabid Right have been bitterly disappointed. It’s a waste and a shame. All we can do is keep fighting for what’s right and wait for an opening.

Actually Foxconn products have horrible quality control problems with many of their motherboards and related parts being DOA. They use poorly paid workers in all phases of construction and much of it still done by hand Im not sure where you have been getting your information.

To blame Wal-Mart for the failures of the US is silly. We are loosing to China in every area ranging from education to manufacturing because of our failures not their successes. The only areas that we are dominating and expanding out lead are in creative litigation and allowing every activists or "stakeholder" veto power over any proposed project.

For example, Apple's i-pad is now a 7 billion dollar business which is employing 100's of thousands of people around the world. The production had had to expand from almost nothing to this level in less than one year. Imagine trying to build even a 10,000 employee manufacturing operation in the US. It would take 3 to 10 years to get permits for the plants, if everything went well. If some eNGO didn't like the "hazardous" materials used or that you didn't have life cycle analysis or environmental impact report (a 3 year project open to the public telling all your competitors what you are up to) that some judge didn't like, you wouldn't get all the permits before the market/technology opportunity has closed. That is why i-pad's are manufactured outside the US with an international supply chain.

We can see this effect all around us. In the US we have developed off-shore aquaculture technology that allows fish to be grown in the open ocean and we import 80% of our seafood. However, our technology can only be sold to other countries, when you can't get permits in the US. Rough estimates indicate that we could have a 2-5 billion dollar per year 10,000+ job offshore aquaculture industry in So. California, without significant environmental impacts (measurable more than a few 100 meters from the actual farms). Development is proceeding in Mexico to fill that 20 million people local seafood market.

We also see that China's leadership is primarily technically trained people who understand science and technology and know that the only reason that the Western societies have been dominating this planet for the last 300 years is superior technology and its application, not our religions, politics or cultures. They know that is where the future lies -- superior technology. Meanwhile, our leadership is now lawyers and people with great charm that are totally ignorant about science and technology.

1) Chinese wages are lower. Advantage China.
2) Chinese admire education. USA scorns experts. Advantage China.
3) US Universities train Chinese. Advantage China.
4) US has no moral structure about work or play.
5) Military is bleeding America to no good end.Chinese save, plan for future. The world sees China spending on windmills, nuclear, USA trapped in corporate politics.
6) Writer of article is pumping American militarism. Israel benefits. No one else does. If China courts the Umma, whither Israel without American military?

US needs

pretty simplistic approach to the problems we face...........

All Fortune 500 American companies and US Federal Government are responsible for this, our system is responsible. China has successfully merged planning economy with capitalism, the CCP not only get revenue from Taxation, they get it from their state own enterprises, which are backed by state own banks.

While, in US, our government cannot get out of 4 years, a major election, 2 years a minor election cycle. None of the administration from W1, Clinton, W2 and Obama can do long term planning for the country while battling the short term survival. How can we make government accountable in short and long term?

Same for the corporations, they have to answer to Wall Street quarterly so they can move forward. No single corporation, no matter how big it is, can compete with Chinese state owned entity since they are state bank and Chinese government backed. As they learn the efficient and effective way of managing those state owned entities, they have an advantage over any shareholders' owned entities (including listed companies).

Apple has billions in net income every quarter, if it could spend $1 billion here in America to make iphone and ipad, rather than ship them in from China, many jobs will be created here in the United States. Yet $1 billion more in cost per quarter will destroy Apple on Wall Street, and it will not be fiduciary responsible for Apple to do this for its shareholder. How do we solve this dilemma?

Canada is a highly civilized country with tight regulation and would not tolerate the bribery and corruption endemic to China. Corruption is normal in Mexico, but the endemic violence, now worsening, was plenty of reason for the NAFTA fraud to be converted into a flight to China. That's the only part of the picture that the economic prophet Perot missed in his denunciation of the trade fraud--how fast the investment would flow from Mexico to China (though some still believe Mexico will serve as a transhipment vehicle to dis-employ American unionists on the west coast). Spp.gov
I hope you all like your expensive pharmaceuticals with no country of origin labels (thank the Clintons and the Bushes) like the contaminated pig guts in the poisoned Heparin that killed hundreds. No, the new FDA inspectors won't be looking to prevent a recurrence, that would inhibit "free trade".

Well said. So much stems from Christianity, the belief system that "I am chosen and you are damned - I need do nothing other than have faith and things will turn around". The mentality that I am right (and absolutely superior) because I think I am, without ever bothering to ponder things like facts will be the undoing of us all.

Because of Wall Street profiteering, moving manufacturing overseas, importing foreign workers, etc. all to boost daily/monthly/quarterly profits, our wages and standard of living are declining. Well, they say, we have to compete in the global market. Unfortunately, the only way for us to compete with people making $2.00 a day is for us to make $1.99 a day, and be willing to lower that rapidly as competition drives it down.

I believe we as a country are in a state of economic war - every country is. Perhaps instead of giving aid and comfort (and jobs) to our "enemies" (competitors) we should be focusing on ramping up our "war efforts" - increasing our own manufacturing, jobs, wages, education, quality of life, competing through exporting our high-quality goods rather than importing low cost goods from elsewhere.

1) Apple has a huge marketcap, but that ranking of companies was by earnings.

2) China is a young country. Chinese CULTURE is the oldest in the world, but as a meaningful political entity China is barely over 100 years old. The idea that China has some ancient wisdom in government is total BS. I'd say more of their recent success stems from their youthful optimism and willingness to experiment with results ranging from the apocalyptic (Great Leap Forward/Cultural Revolution) to the amazing (controlled market liberalization).

3) I have a hard time feeling bad about a country of 1.3 billion people having more wealth than a country of 300 million. Can't an average Chinese person get a quarter of what a US person gets?

Look what it did to Chile's waters, both inland and ocean. Gross pollution due to mismanagement led to a disease outbreak and bad pollution of their waters, both fresh and salt. And don't think for a microsecond it wouldn't happen here too. Until they can find a way to make it both sustainable and not harm the environment the way it is doing now, I say no way.

China doesn't stand to gain anything from a direct conflict with the United States. Unlike previous world wars with great powers, those countries had much to gain by going to war(economically, not from a humanitarian perspective of course). If China is to go to war it would be to do what America is doing now, to stabilize regions where they have economic relations. This might scare Americans, or we might open it with open arms.

I could see them getting involved in Africa like America is getting involved in middle east, but direct conflict is really not on the table at this time. That said, if you look at the political leadership in charge now in China, they are all moderates. None of them are willing to go to lengths that Mao was obvious ready to go to with America, the wikileaks cables FP had an article previously on that Chinese diplomat calling NK a spoiled childed is a clear indicator that things have changed in China.

Anyways much of America's production is based in China, so China having preferential treatment to resources doesn't exactly mean America loses out. It actually creates more mutual aid for the two super powers pushing us away from conflict.

Think of it this way. A nuclear exchange between two giants the US and China will knock both belligerents punch drunk. Once both sides have exhausted their arsenals Russia is left standing as the only nuclear superpower. Russia can then impose her truce on the exhausted parties and the rest of the world. And she can slap down any country that doesn't disarm its nukes. Russia becomes the true and sole global hegemon a position of strength she will never relinquish. If I am Russian that's an opportunity I will not hesitate to take advantage of.

If it did come to an all-out nuclear war, I assume this scenario has been studied. I would guess that any first strike would be against any and all foes capable of retaliation. Otherwise, what would be the point?

For those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.

Anyone who knows anything about Chinese history understands that China has never been and will never be an expansionist power. Its not part of their modus operandi. China sees itself as the Central Kingdom. Other countries are viewed as tributary states. The Chinese bestow their largesse on these states in exchange for valuable resources. Trade is a question of barter, Chinese goods for other countries natural resources. Concomitant to this policy is the fact that China has always been and will continue to be a mercantile state. Its been the Chinese way of doing things for millennia. The Chinese have no interest in territorial acquisitions or fighting foreign wars. They think strategically, something which the US is sorely lacking in.

Calling other people "mad" or "crazy" is an easy way out. Often, when we don't understand others, we call them crazy, but if they are understood, their reasoning may be quite solid and also quite unlike ours.

The CCP has long indoctrinated its population of sheeple to blame the United States for everything from inflation to earthquakes. Doing so certainly takes the focus off the CCP and its self serving, self preserving policies and the CCP's endemic and massive corrpution. The Chinese already and still hate the Japanese so not much work by the CCP is required on this front.

The fenqing, China's 21st century KKK, are certain that in order to extend China's 5000 year superior domestic hegemony to the new globalized world, the United States must be eliminated in one quick and decisive strike, another of history's folllies, i.e., the short and quick, decisive "clean" war. The plan is simultaneously to disable US military and civilian satellites in inner space, destroy US cyber capabilities, and destroy the US Navy at sea (carrier destroying missles that can hit a moving aircraft carrier etc). This is real, this is the mindset of the elites of the Middle Kingdom. In a bold public declaration of this policy planning, the recently retired PLA Defense Minister Air Force Gen Chi Haotian wrote on June 6th 2006 (the 62nd anniversary of WW2 D-Day), "War is not far from us, and is the midwife of the Chinese Century."

It appears that there is only one scenario that will trigger a devastating war between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party People's Republic of China, and that is the determination of the Chinese in their unrestrained hubris to conquer the United States in yet another of history's quick, short, "clean" wars. I am sad to think of the devastation the madmen of the CCP and their fenqing will wreak. They completely and grossly misread and underestimate the United States while, as with all modern madmen such as Hitler and Mao, cause only holocaust.

I know many Chinese students and scholars who have studied and lived in the US. They have gotten graduate degrees here and many stay on to teach at the university level. All have bought homes here and live comfortably. Over the last few years many have established residences in China as well and they travel back and forth frequently. Now many are shifting their primary residence back to China or Hong Kong. They keep their US homes and Green Cards as an insurance policy in case things go awry. They basically want the best of both worlds and hence hedge their bets.

Cutting Social Security benefits will result in less spending by senior consumers. Cutting Medicare benefits will result in more expenses (or more illness) for seniors. Cutting the military budget will result in lower profits for important corporations and more job losses in states with high-powered corporations that serve the military.

It will be interesting to see which of these consequences the Republicans will try to bring about. [By the way, I don't expect the Democrats to even try to solve these problems.]

HURRICANEWARNING wrote: "culturally, we are just so unbelievably dominant"

This statement proves that you have never left the USA. In Europe, rap-crap and hip-hopeless are not remotely dominant. Their discos play entirely different music than ones in the USA. In Russia, one hears almost 100% Russian music. Ever hear of Eurovision?

"I find it difficult to believe that my peers or I would ever go to China for an undergrad or grad education."

You may not, but others will. But you have missed the larger issue. People like Tom Brokaw are already on record as saying that students in the USA should learn foreign languages, especially Chinese, and leave the USA if they want a good job. Students in many countries, e.g. Ireland, are already leaving to go to other countries in search of employment. Watch the underemployment rate here over the next few months. Currently 26.6 million people are either unable to find a full-time job or are only able to find a part-time job. This number will continue to increase regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are in power. See the current Bureau of Labor Statistics data at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm.

I am also skeptical of many of this article's main points.

First, the argument that Japan would never be a serious contender for "number one" benefits heavily from hindsight. In its heyday, Japan was at the forefront of technological innovation and cultural influence. It was home to household names like Sony and Toyota, it pioneered one of the world's favorite pastimes in the form of video-games, and it was the envy of the world in terms of its worker productivity, pre-tertiary school system, and lifelong employment system. Japan was stable, peaceful, and unassuming, and its rise to "number one" would have never been about it perhaps surpassing the US as #1 in overall GDP (a superficial event at best), but about it projecting outsized influence in terms of its economic model and cultural sway. Paul Kennedy even thought that Japan would revolutionize how countries approached military spending: Japan dedicated less than 1% of its budget to defense during its halcyon years.

What does China have by contrast? The average Chinese is as poor as an El Salvadoran. Cities like Beijing are cultural vacuums. China's main export to the rest of the world is cheap consumer goods and money. Its most famous companies are state-owned behemoths who benefit from having no competition domestically. All of its major technology is derived from models in the West and in Japan. I am not even sure that China has "surpassed" Japan (or France, or Germany, or the UK) in terms of anything other than overall GDP, which is hardly something to get excited about since China's sheer population size means that even with a meager GDP per capita it can generate overall output on the level of a more advanced society.

"Its economy has been growing at 9 to 10 percent a year, on average, for roughly three decades. It is now the world's leading exporter and its biggest manufacturer, and it is sitting on more than $2.5 trillion of foreign reserves. Chinese goods compete all over the world. This is no Soviet-style economic basket case."

The 9-10% growth rate will not last indefinitely, with many China watchers even in China like Michael Pettis expecting growth to slow to 3-5% this decade, as China is forced to readjust. It is easy to have outsized growth when much of it comes from over-investment: GDP is rising, but is wealth really being created? Observers often wonder why China does not have a larger consumer class (consumption is only 1/3rd of GDP), but seem to ignore that obvious evidence before them, i.e., that growth by investment is not necessarily the means by which households get rich and in turn consume. By contrast, households lose money each year to subsidies, inflation, and cheap monetary policy, all of which are used to keep the superficial growth machine humming.

What does the foreign reserves have to do with anything? The US has comparable reserves right before the Great Depression, and only recovered from that catastrophe due to the accident of WWII. Japan also had gigantic reserves in the 1980s. These reserves cannot be spent domestically or used to recapitalize banks. They are symptoms of unbalanced growth rather than signs of immutable power.

Sure, Brazil and India sided with China. Then Brazil admitted it got "its finger burned" and it withdrew on the Iran issue. India looks to America more than ever as it confronts the strategic rivalry with China.

"Sheer size and economic momentum mean that the Chinese juggernaut will keep rolling forward, no matter what obstacles lie in its path."

This seems like unbelievably lazy logic. Much of said momentum at present comes from an investment binge which cannot go on indefinitely without plunging the country into significant additional debt and developing even more value-destroying overcapacity.

At least Mr. Rachman mentions some of China's issues going forward, though he dismisses them fairly quickly. I really think this article should have just been called "China's Rise: It's real," rather than repackaged as yet another declinist screed.

The US has experienced widespread unemployment many times in the past (unemployment was at the same level as it is today as recently as the 1980s) and it did not result in an inevitable exodus abroad, or in every student being required to learn Russian, Japanese, or Chinese.

Hip-hop does not need to dominate Russia in order to prove America's cultural might. There are obvious signs everywhere, from English as lingua franca, to the global dissemination of originally American phenomena like the internet, social networking, search engines, smartphones, and the like.

Whatever its transient economic failings, America has built an outsized, global cultural profile that is unprecedented.

ALEXBC wrote: "There are obvious signs everywhere, from English as lingua franca"

This is a side-effect of the last century being the USA's. Globalization needs a common language and the best language at the time was English. The USA could disappear tomorrow and English would still remain the de facto language of international commerce.

ALEXBC wrote: "internet [sic], social networking, search engines, smartphones, and the like"

Where are the jobs located to manufacture smartphones, as well as televisions, PCs, LCD displays, stereo equipment, etc? That's right, China and India. Even L.L.Bean manufactures its luggage overseas, in Vietnam.

Most people, including you, have not grasped the full implications of the Internet. Yes, a few companies like Google have been created, but most industries have been devastated by the Internet because it allows, for the very first time, workers who use telephones and email to perform their duties to be outsourced. When you objectively think about it, the vast majority of jobs fit into this category. Alan Blinder and Nouriel Roubini have predicted that 25% of existing jobs will be outsourced in the near future. I'd say their estimate is low.

You missed my other post where I noted that all new jobs are created elsewhere. After all previous recessions, the USA could recover because the following events would occur in order: factories would run out of goods, factories would hire more American workers to fill the demand, those newly hired workers would spend the money they earned, and the recession would be over. Now those same factories will only be hiring foreign workers. You really need to dwell on the implications of this.

The USA will become the 21st Century's version of the Cheshire Cat, where the only thing left is its cultural smile.

"This is a side-effect of the last century being the USA's. Globalization needs a common language and the best language at the time was English. The USA could disappear tomorrow and English would still remain the de facto language of international commerce."

Which would not negate the fact that English as lingua franca is a significant American cultural contribution that cannot be easily displaced by any other country, especially China.

ALEXBC wrote: "internet [sic], social networking, search engines, smartphones, and the like"

Why the [sic]? I did not make any error. "Internet" does not have to be capitalized.

"Where are the jobs located to manufacture smartphones, as well as televisions, PCs, LCD displays, stereo equipment, etc? That's right, China and India. Even L.L.Bean manufactures its luggage overseas, in Vietnam."

China assembles those products. Most of the actual components are made in Japan, Germany, and even the US. When adjusted for value-added, these products add almost nothing to the US trade deficit.

"Most people, including you, have not grasped the full implications of the Internet. Yes, a few companies like Google have been created, but most industries have been devastated by the Internet because it allows, for the very first time, workers who use telephones and email to perform their duties to be outsourced. When you objectively think about it, the vast majority of jobs fit into this category. Alan Blinder and Nouriel Roubini have predicted that 25% of existing jobs will be outsourced in the near future. I'd say their estimate is low."

This does not affect the US uniquely. In fact, China will lose additional jobs to countries like Vietnam for the same reasons of rising cost of production and/or revaluation of currency, both underlying issues that have nothing to do with the internet. Also, "I'd say their estimate is low" is blind speculation.

"You missed my other post where I noted that all new jobs are created elsewhere. After all previous recessions, the USA could recover because the following events would occur in order: factories would run out of goods, factories would hire more American workers to fill the demand, those newly hired workers would spend the money they earned, and the recession would be over. Now those same factories will only be hiring foreign workers. You really need to dwell on the implications of this."

I did not miss any of your posts. The idea that recessions are simply about the ebbs and flows of factory output is naive and simplistic, plus it disagrees with your other point that job numbers are now all about the internet and jobs that can be done via phone/email. "When you objectively think about it, the vast majority of jobs fit into this category." Which is it ? How do the "vast majority of jobs" fit into the phone/email category, while business cycles and job numbers are all about factory output?

The US recovered from recessions in the 1980s and 2000s even as its overall factory output steadily decline relative to its overall GDP and even as outsourcing ran rampant.

"The USA will become the 21st Century's version of the Cheshire Cat, where the only thing left is its cultural smile."

It feels good to be underestimated, especially by way of a mixed metaphor: how was there ever anything "cultural" about the Cheshire Cat's look, and what exactly is a "cultural smile," anyway?

well, yes, perhaps I need to travel more (50 countries at last count) or spend more time abroad (over two full years living and working in central and south america full time)...Oh, and I've spent time in about every country in europe....sooooooo, anyway. looks like your theory is false. you know what ASSuming does, dont you?

by the way, all that european music has American roots. European rap stars look and act like american ones. And by FAR AND AWAY the most dominant musical figures are either American, or managed by American talent companies...so, again, what are you talking about?
with regards to Russia...yeah, guess what, Russia (and most countries of europe) is pretty poorly integrated, a bit homogenous culturally, and frankly is very similar to China in its ethnocentric, almost racist view of the rest of the world, so whatever Russia does with its music....I dont care, and neither should you.

while this might sound harsh, it's the truth, if you cant see it, then my friend you are blind.

The statement that the United States is the most culturally dominant country in History is 100% correct. Give me one REAL counter point to that. I would maybe accept an argument involving Great Britain...possibly the Soviet Union (but only because it exported weapons, death, instability, and all around idiocy). PLease, please. Prove me wrong. Im not some rah, rah flag waving psycho...but lets be honest, and give the devil his due. America really cant be matched....yet.

ALEXBC wrote: "English as lingua franca is a significant American cultural contribution"

I agree with this statement in isolation. The USA has indeed greatly contributed to the cultural history of the world. The operative word here is "history."

ALEXBC wrote: "Why the [sic]? 'Internet' does not have to be capitalized."

Yes, it does: reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet. I have used the Internet since its very inception.

Your position is similar to people who use the expression "I could care less," when the correct expression is "I couldn't care less." The fact that many people wrongly use a particular expression does not change its status.

ALEXBC wrote: "Most of the actual components are made in Japan, Germany, and even the US."

That used to be true. Foxconn and the other houses of slavery use mainly Chinese components. China buys machine tools and other high-value manufacturing tools from Germany, but they are used to produce the final product, not be a part of that product. China no longer buys German (or any other country's) trains because it copied and/or stole the technology to produce a hybrid of the best technologies (see my blog series "Made in USA" high-speed railway network" and "The not-so-accidental Chinese spy"). The USA manufactures CPU and other high-end chips, but how much of the overall product do these chips occupy? China is squeezing Japan out of the market; read the stories of how Japan recently inked a deal with Vietnam, and South Korea with Burma, to supply rare earths.

This is a good place to insert a URL from the Congressional Research Service. The top five exports to China as of July 2010 are: 1) oilseeds and grains; 2) waste and scrap, 3) semiconductors and electronic components, 4) aircraft and parts, and 5) resins, synthetic rubber, and fibers. So you are correct for now that the USA ships large quantities of chips to China, Japan, and South Korea. For now. The 4th category will evaporate in 2016 when China starts shipping its own 190-seat airliner, the C919.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33536.pdf

ALEXBC wrote: "[outsourcing] does not affect the US uniquely"

I completely agree. We are the vanguard of the abyss (another mixed metaphor for you).

ALEXBC wrote: "especially by way of a mixed metaphor"

I've always admired Foghorn Leghorn who often said "That’s a joke, son, I say, that’s a joke."

HurricaneWarning wrote: "saucy mugwump...or whatever"

My real name is as similar to saucymugwump as I assume (there I go again) yours is to HurricaneWarning.

HurricaneWarning wrote: "European rap stars look and act like american ones"

That statement is true, but irrelevant. Most European music is not based on rap. Have you ever watched Eurovision? European music has entirely different roots. And while we are performing analysis on the origin of music, much of 1970s and 1980s synthesized music originated from Europe, with Kraftwerk and Propaganda being just a few examples.

HurricaneWarning wrote: "Russia . . . frankly is very similar to China in its ethnocentric, almost racist view of the rest of the world . . . I dont care, and neither should you."

Of course Russia and China are nationalistic and racist. So are Japan and Korea (both of them). However, unlike you, I believe we should pay close attention to the 1st and 4th largest countries in the world. Russia is now the leading oil producer in the world. Russia is #2 in natural gas production, just barely behind the USA. Both Russia and China could easily reform into USSR-esque entities, with severe implications for the world.

I completely agree that the USA is the most culturally dominant country today. As to history, one could easily make the case that Rome was the most dominant country in history. As I alluded to earlier, however, Rome is no longer important and the USA is heading that way.

Daniel Drezner of FP recently wrote:

"China is a great power in every sense of the word. It is the most populous country in the world. The Middle Kingdom has weathered the Great Recession better than the West. It is developing a blue-water navy to rival the United States in the Pacific. In 2010, China surpassed Japan as the world's second-largest economy. For many Americans, however, this is not enough. Politicians, commentators, and the public believe China has already supplanted the United States to achieve primacy in world politics. This is not only wrong -- it is dangerously wrong.

According to a November 2009 Pew Research Center survey, 44 percent of Americans believe that China is "the world's leading economic power," compared with 27 percent who name the United States. Elites have fed this mass perception. After a midterm election cycle that featured anti-China ad after anti-China ad, President Barack Obama warned, "Other countries like China aren't standing still, so we can't stand still either." With public perception and political rhetoric like this, it is little wonder that Forbes magazine recently named Chinese President Hu Jintao the world's most powerful individual.

It's time to make a few things clear. If one measures power strictly according to GDP at market exchange rates, then the United States is roughly 250 percent more powerful than China. If one uses a combination of metrics -- as does, for example, the U.S. National Intelligence Council's 2025 project -- then China possesses a little less than half of America's relative power. Even on the financial side, the U.S. still reigns, and, hype notwithstanding, the dollar is not going anywhere as the world's reserve currency. The renminbi could be an alternative in the far future -- but after the 2008 financial crisis, China is loath to open up its capital markets. Even by the less tangible metrics of soft power, the United States still outperforms China handily in new public opinion surveys from the Pacific Rim by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

Right now, the United States is vastly more powerful than the People's Republic of China. Anyone telling you otherwise is selling you something.

Why the massive misperception? In part, people are looking at the wrong measures. China has the world's largest currency reserves, leading many to conclude that Beijing now has the ability to dictate terms to the United States and everyone else. But that just ain't so. The "balance of financial terror" constrains China as well as the United States because China needs American consumers at least as much as the United States needs China to buy its debt.

No doubt, China amassed more power while American might ebbed over the last decade, and Beijing is now throwing its weight around. But the United States still has a huge lead. As for China's recent bout of belligerence, it has yielded Beijing little beyond Japan releasing a fishing-boat captain -- while pushing South Asia and the Pacific Rim closer to the United States.

Exaggerating Chinese power has consequences. Inside the Beltway, attitudes about American hegemony have shifted from complacency to panic. Fearful politicians representing scared voters have an incentive to scapegoat or lash out against a rising power -- to the detriment of all. Hysteria about Chinese power also provokes confusion and anger in China as Beijing is being asked to accept a burden it is not yet prepared to shoulder. China, after all, ranks 89th in the 2010 U.N. Human Development Index, just behind Turkmenistan and the Dominican Republic (the United States is fourth). Treating Beijing as more powerful than it is feeds Chinese bravado and insecurity at the same time. That is almost as dangerous a political cocktail as fear and panic."

Daniel W. Drezner, professor of international politics at Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, blogs at ForeignPolicy.com.

THIS is precisely my belief...in a nut shell, and articulated much more eloquently I might add.

"Yes, it does: reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet. I have used the Internet since its very inception.

Your position is similar to people who use the expression "I could care less," when the correct expression is "I couldn't care less." The fact that many people wrongly use a particular expression does not change its status."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/internet

"internet (??nt??n?t)

— n
( sometimes with a capital ) the internet Also known as: the Net the single worldwide computer network that interconnects other computer networks, on which end-user services, such as World Wide Web sites or data archives, are located, enabling data and other information to be exchanged

Get off your high horse.

Your position is similar to people who think that WikiPedia is the gospel truth.

"That used to be true. Foxconn and the other houses of slavery use mainly Chinese components. China buys machine tools and other high-value manufacturing tools from Germany, but they are used to produce the final product, not be a part of that product. China no longer buys German (or any other country's) trains because it copied and/or stole the technology to produce a hybrid of the best technologies (see my blog series "Made in USA" high-speed railway network" and "The not-so-accidental Chinese spy"). The USA manufactures CPU and other high-end chips, but how much of the overall product do these chips occupy? China is squeezing Japan out of the market; read the stories of how Japan recently inked a deal with Vietnam, and South Korea with Burma, to supply rare earths."

Although your description of Foxconn as a "house of slavery" destroys your credibility, you can read the fact at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704828104576021142902413796.html

"This is a good place to insert a URL from the Congressional Research Service. The top five exports to China as of July 2010 are: 1) oilseeds and grains; 2) waste and scrap, 3) semiconductors and electronic components, 4) aircraft and parts, and 5) resins, synthetic rubber, and fibers. So you are correct for now that the USA ships large quantities of chips to China, Japan, and South Korea. For now. The 4th category will evaporate in 2016 when China starts shipping its own 190-seat airliner, the C919.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33536.pdf"

The C919 is mostly made in America and France, with the exception of the fuselage. It offers China a domestic alternative to Boeing or Airbus that is, more or less, manufactured indirectly by those same companies. I do not get the hype about the C919. If anything, the airplane industry needs more competition.

"I've always admired Foghorn Leghorn who often said "That’s a joke, son, I say, that’s a joke.""

I don't get it, sorry.

ALEXBC wrote: "http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/internet"

From the website you referenced:

"a vast computer network linking smaller computer networks worldwide (usually prec. by the ). The Internet includes commercial, educational, governmental, and other networks, all of which use the same set of communications protocols."

Note how "Internet" starts with a capitalized letter. Thank you for proving my point.

ALEXBC wrote: "Your position is similar to people who think that WikiPedia is the gospel truth."

Not remotely, but it has far fewer ads than the website you referenced.

ALEXBC wrote: "Although your description of Foxconn as a "house of slavery" destroys your credibility"

Name another company where workers jumped to their deaths from the upper floors.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/china-taiwan/091103/silicon-sweatshops-globalpost-investigation
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/7798741/Steve-Jobs-says-Apple-is-all-over-Foxconn-suicides.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,697296,00.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10252344
http://video.pbs.org/video/1488092077/

has a realistic view on China.

America needs a competitor, because America even at its best can be fat, self-referential, moralizing, and stupid.

So, as providence has it, America continues to be a very lucky nation, because the next seeming competitor coming up is the land based, extreme ethnocentric, undemocratic China. So far, China's role in foreign policy seems to be to make the US look good, pushing China's neighbors into our arms. Tomorrow will not be the same as yesterday. but its hard to think that the backers of Pyongyang's 12th century dystopia are suddenly going to get clever and propent of popular government, even with the success of HK, Taiwan and the Pacific Rim right there in front of them.

We will never get rid of the proponents of a bigger navy, air force, or trade barriers, because there are interests who beat the drum day and night. But China is not the reason.

Very well said!

"Although China is making inroads in places such as Africa, polls show that Africans dont view the Chinese in a favorable light."

China does not wish to be a cultural hegemon in Africa or Africa. It wishes to gain access to raw materials by engaging in mutually beneficial trade and economic relationships. China is doing what we should have done which is to actually aid third world countries by helping them build up their infrastructure and extractive industries. China wants access to not o0itright control of natural resources and they can accomplish this by mutually beneficial means and non-interference in other countries internal affairs.

"unless China becomes suddenly less oppressive, and opens its doors to becoming a cultural melting pot, I find it difficult to believe that my peers or I would ever go to China for an undergrad or grad education."

China is the fount of culture for all of East Asia and much of Southeast Asia. The Chinese way of doing things is fundamental to nearly i/3 of humanity. If you live in China as a foreign student or scholar it is no more oppressive than living in the US. China is not a police state. The visible presence of armed police in intimidating police cruisers is much more prevalent in the US than China. The idea that China is an oppressive totalitarian, or now the somewhat more benign authoritarian state, is misleading. The political charade is hidden behind the veil of one-party rule, but their are many outlets for public discourse and the flow of information is actually better than in the US. Many educated urban Chinese are more knowledgeable about how the US is governed than are American citizens.

China has daunting problems and the US has many advantages. Imagine 1 billion people living in an area the size of the US east of the Mississippi. But China also has a virtually unlimited domestic market that will power its economy in the same fashion that the US economy was powered by domestic consumption from the 1950s through 1980s.

I'm not sure why using English, especially for business purposes, indicates an adoption of American culture. English is actually not one language; it is many. It is used in far different ways by disparate groups of people. The fact that a member of the British House of Lords uses English as well as an illegal immigrant in Arizona does not mean that they share the same "culture."

I don't mean to suggest that other parts of your argument are not persuasive, but I don't quite get this one.

I am not sure that China is "beating the US at its own game." They are playing different games. China's economy is overrun by central planning. For example, investment (particularly fixed asset construction) constitutes over 2/3rds of GDP, an unimaginable number for a free market economy or, for the matter, for any economy, period. GDP does not take into account quality; if the government decides to buy 5 trillion paperclips, that gets added to GDP, too. Likewise, China's government has spearheaded a gigantic spending spree over the past 2-3 years as it attempts to keep growth going in spite of dwindling global demand, especially from its customers in the West. Its surplus real estate, highways, and factories (China produces, for example, 1/2 the world's steel while accounting for only 1/8th of its economic activity) all get added to GDP and ensure that grow stays at an artificially high, face-saving rate.

The US does not have the levers to engineer such a singular driver of growth...and it should probably be happy that it does not. A US spending spree on the scale of China's would likely destroy the US economy by creating further distortions in terms of bad loans, balance sheets, and overcapacity.

China is indeed beating the USA at its own game, but the game is very different than either ADAM ONGE or ALEXBC realize.

China's version of capitalism is not 2010, but 1870 or thereabouts, i.e. the era of the robber barons. China is able to compete exactly as the USA once did, by polluting its rivers and lakes, dumping poisons into the air, and treating workers as slaves. This is a huge competitive advantage.

Deng Xiaoping was not lucky. Perhaps you should be paying attention to the situation over its dominance of the rare earths market. He once remarked "There is oil in the Middle East, there is rare earth in China." China's monopoly over rare earths -- necessary for the manufacture of magnets, televisions, wind turbines, smart phones, computer monitors, hybrid cars, and smart weapons -- is an issue over which our fearless leaders have been asleep at the switch.

I documented the rare earth implications on my blog series of "Trade with China, rare earths, and even rarer intelligence" and "The coming USA-China war."

Of course China will stumble. So did the USA on its rise to the top.

http://saucymugwump.blogspot.com/

Deng Xiaoping was wrong about rare earths. His comparison of China to Saudi Arabia is terrible, since Saudia Arabia is preeminent in oil production due to supply, whereas China is superior in rare earths only because of initiative. It has not even 1/3rd of the world's actual "rare" earths reserves. Its own goal against Japan last year has already begun the erosion of its monopoly, not only through production initiatives abroad but by actual efforts to do without these allegedly "essential" elements:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-TipSz9Z3U4J:blogs.forbes.com/jeremybogaisky/2010/09/09/eroding-chinas-grip-on-rare-earth-metals/+forbes+japan+rare+earths+without&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

I do understand what game China is playing, which is exactly why I said that it was not playing the same game as the US. When the US was ruled by robber barons in the 1800s, it was on the cutting-edge of international commerce, having already become the largest economy and reached a wage-level higher than Europe. Robber barons were new phenomena borne out by the industrial revolution, which China sat out. To reprise robber baronism in the 2010s would be like reprising Spanish colonialism in the 19th century: out of step with the times, perhaps rudimentarily effective in acquiring wealth for a while, but ultimately doomed to being obsolete. My point is that China's robber baron phase is an embrace of the past, whereas the US's robber baron phase was an embrace of the future.

ALEXBC wrote: "Deng Xiaoping was wrong about rare earths. His comparison of China to Saudi Arabia is terrible, since Saudia Arabia is preeminent in oil production due to supply"

Do you always concentrate on individual trees and lose sight of the forest? Deng Xiaoping was using the comparison to note how China planned to become a major player in an important market, a rather powerful market. And he succeeded.

By the way, Russia is now #1 in oil production. Saudi Arabia is #1 in exports, with Russia being #2.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2173rank.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2176rank.html

ALEXBC wrote: "I do understand what game China is playing"

I do, and it's brilliant. To give just one example, China cajoled the world into sharing technology with a carrot of more sales to come later. Then when China assimilated the world's best technology, it stopped ordering any more products from foreign companies. Machiavelli would be proud.

I am glad someone did not take this article laying down. Also:

1) the anti-ship missile is merely in development: it has not actually been made or even proven to be effective. Even if it were launched, US satellites could notify any ship within seconds of said launch, allowing it to move miles away with time to spare. Not to mention, what would be the retaliation for such an attempted strike on a US ship?

2) Japan is already working on a computer to overtake China's, and the US is undergoing a gut-check on this issue, too. But does it even matter? As recently as 2004, Japan held the supercomputer title, and it did not entitle them to technological (much less economic) superiority.

3) Most of China's train technology was derived from France and Japan. Most of the world's successful high-speed rail corridors were in small countries with high worker productivity, where the time saved on a commute could be economically significant in terms of output. Such countries unsurprisingly include France, Germany, and Japan. China, by contrast, is geographically vast, with relatively low productivity per capita: what exactly is being saved by building rail corridors to Tibet?

ALEXBC wrote: "US satellites could notify any ship within seconds of said launch, allowing it to move miles away with time to spare"

You do know that the missile travels at Mach 10, right? 7680 MPH will not allow any ship to move very far. And you are assuming that we have a spy satellite parked (actually, orbital mechanics does not allow satellites to be "parked") over their potential launch sites.

ALEXBC wrote: "Most of China's train technology was derived from France and Japan"

That's a rather polite way of expressing it. The truth is that China acquired it in two ways. First, via espionage. Der Spiegel and other media outlets have documented this (see URLs below). Second, via contractural conditions. Siemens, Kawasaki, and Bombardier were naive and stupid enough to sign contracts requiring them to share their trade secrets. Now these companies are not receiving any more contracts. Gee, what a surprise!

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,713478,00.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10792465
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,692969,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/22/germany-china-industrial-espionage
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/Parameters/Articles/2010summer/Thomas.pdf

video report http://www.youtube.com/user/deutschewelleenglish#p/u/4/UL4EvWyBHZg

"U.S. satellites would detect an ASBM as soon as it was launched, providing a carrier enough warning to move several miles before the missile could reach its target. To hit a moving carrier, a U.S. government weapons specialist said, China's targeting systems would have to be "better than world-class."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/24/AR2010122402788_2.html

The missile is also, for all intents and purposes, still vaporware.

SAUCYMUGWUMP wrote:
"You do know that the missile travels at Mach 10, right? 7680 MPH will not allow any ship to move very far. And you are assuming that we have a spy satellite parked (actually, orbital mechanics does not allow satellites to be "parked") over their potential launch sites."

The US DSP satellite system has been in operation for over two decades and is indeed "parked" in geosyncronous orbit covering potential launch spots. These can detect a launch and give warning to our ships allowing them to take evasive action and/or prepare countermeasures via AMB Standard 3 missles launched from the supporting convoy. As far as the speed of the missile you have to remember that the Mach 10 speed is during its ballistic period. Launch period is much slower as it is accellerating. I would assume the guided portion would be slower if you want to give the warhead much range of motion at all on final. The faster it comes down the less you can steer it.

ALEXBC and SCETOAUX wrote: parking is real

I have worked for multiple defense contractors. I have friends working on spy satellites. One of them joked that a general once ordered a spy satellite to be parked over a particular spot, but it was impossible. And no, they do not tell me classified material.

Geosyncronous orbits do indeed allow telecomm satellites to appear to be parked over a spot on the globe, but those orbits have very specific limits, e.g. high altitudes. Spy satellites live much closer to the Earth and that makes all the difference. Spy satellites would need to burn lots of propellant to remain stationary, drastically shortening the life of it.

As to the reports that the Dong Feng 21D will not be ready for some time, remember that the world underestimated China's ability to field an aircraft carrier in the near term, as the below URL noted.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8229789/China-preparing-for-armed-conflict-in-every-direction.html

Digging deeper won't change the fact that you are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Support_Program

These satellites have existed for decades detecting launches, explosions and other events. They form the basis of our strategic defense. I am surprised that someone with your contacts as you say would be unaware of them.

I think it is interesting how he says that the USSR and Japan were paper tigers, yet decides that 1991 marks the beginning of unprecedented US superiority. Why would he have chosen that delineation point if he did not actually realize, at some level, that the USSR and Japan were real threats to US primacy that coincidentally happened to decline in 1991? If they had been like so many paper tigers, as he asserts, then why not just extend US historical primacy back as far as possible?

With all due respect, I think you've been watching too much Glenn Beck lately. You write about the decline of "human capital" since the end of the Civil War and the Wilson presidency in the early twentieth century. However in terms of productivity, inventiveness, military power, and international ambitions, those two historical moments you deride were key to the rise of American hegemony, which in general terms, I think has been quite benevolent and beneficial if you consider the plausible alternatives (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia).

Modern history shows that the presence of a strong centralized state is essential to any country aspiring to become a major world power. And the basis for that key element of course, came with the defeat of the Confederation in hands of the Union. It was in Wilson's times in the when it became clear that America was by far the No.1 economic power in the world. Also militarily, by projecting its armies across the ocean and winning a war over there. Diplomatically and ideologically too, as the US gained enough self-confidence to proclaim that American values are universal values, and that the world could become the best possible of worlds if it only followed the American example.

Follow Glenn Beck's advice and get your history right -by not listening to him anymore. I recommend for starters "The American Ascendancy" by Michael H. Hunt.

In a nation where slavery was once legal, it is difficult to accept the opinion that we are today suffering the "subjection of individual liberty," unless you are referring to the liberty of individuals to buy and sell other individuals at will. Perhaps you DO regret the loss of the institution of slavery, but many people would see that "loss" as an actual increase in individual liberty.

Is a nation "self-sufficient" because it uses slaves to do the hard work?

It's worth noting that the specific elements of deterioration you cite were warned against by the John Birch Society and a small number of associates as far back as the 1950s. For which they were branded extremists and associated with the Nazis and the Klan (by way of domestic operatives of the KGB--see "The Sword and the Shield" by Christopher Andrew). Fox News recently presented a "history" of the era which featured a rendition of W.F. Buckley's purge of these "extremists" as necessary and reasonable; in retrospect it appears that Buckley's real role was to control the "official" version of conservatism and keep in "in house" for the CFR elites lest anybody rock the boat on the way to utterly mindless globalization.
There is also the role of social policies such as so-called "affirmative action" and "diversity training" which have irrevocably lowered our standards in almost every field (the one exception being aviation). Now we have people afraid to expose incompetence, corruption, and even security risks (as in the case of the Ft. Hood massacre) lest they be accused of racism or insensitivity. I met Chinese nationals at Berkeley who were astounded by the concept of "diversity" as some kind of social good, and saw their initial wonderment turn into a distilled contempt: any people so weak and insipid as to institute such a policy deserve to fail.

while I agree that it certainly seems like your above statement is true sometimes, the facts point in another direction. less than 3% of all university students enrolled in the U.S. are international students.

HurricaneWarning wrote: "less than 3% of all university students enrolled in the U.S. are international students"

XTIANGODLOKI was not referring to Women's Studies and other useless degrees. He specifically mentioned computing, engineering, and medicine, especially at the graduate level. This has been a growing trend for a long time. As someone who worked in the software business for a long time, I can verify that Chinese nationals are common in the software and engineering businesses, even in DOD work requiring clearances.

In American universities, anyone who studies software and/or engineering is ridiculed. Contrast that to other countries like South Korea, China, and India where this goal is lauded.

A woman currently in college recently told me a story which illuminates the issue. She related to me how she passed a class: not did well, just passed. Then she told me of her roommate, a South Korean, who is here mainly to become fluent in English. She and her South Korean friends are fluent in Korean, English, and at least one more language, either Chinese or Japanese. Yes, South Koreans are not Chinese, but the moral of the story still applies.

I am not familiar with software or engineering students being "ridiculed" at American universities. On the contrary, smug commentators who ridicule culturally significant subjects (from English to Gender Studies) as being useless have in turn afforded engineers a new mystique as purveyors of "real" knowledge.

America has been chided for its "bad" education system and its linguistically challenged people for what seems like an eternity now. It seems to have gotten on ok in spite of that.

ALEXBC wrote: "I am not familiar with software or engineering students being 'ridiculed' at American universities"

Did you ever attend one?

ALEXBC wrote: "smug commentators who ridicule culturally significant subjects (from English to Gender Studies)"

English is not useless and I did not denigrate it. But try getting a job with a degree in gender studies; try to build anything useful with that education.

My point, which clearly flew wildly over your head, is that the USA needs graduates in engineering, science, medicine, and other immediately useful subjects like foreign languages.

ALEXBC wrote: "[America] seems to have gotten on ok in spite of that."

And we have come full circle, as the article on which we are commenting noted that the USA is on the decline.

I agree with the points about foreign nationals, and many Chinese among them, in the advanced degree programs. Talk to any relevant department head, and you will get a confirmation.

An additional, and self-sustaining issue, relative to IT programs is that in many schools Americans have given up on these programs in large numbers. Why? Well, why go after a degree in IT/Computer Programming only to have your job outsourced to the BRIC countries.

Sooner or later, the US will be either robber barons or McDonald's workers.

Since US universities are able to pick the cream of the foreign crop, the best Chinese grad students do study in the US. But that is hardly "most" of the students. There are as many Indians and, probably, Koreans in US grad schools as Chinese. And, of course, most of the Chinese students end up staying in the US.

"Many if not most [sic] of the advanced research...is being done by Chinese." That's hilarious. Do you really believe that stuff?

Yes, that's right. Train and get a valuable skill and your job will be outsourced. So why not just drop out of school. How ridiculous. Stop peddling this 'poor engineer' business. Engineers, like everyone else, need to man up and prove themselves better than the conmpetition. Mostly, in the US, they are. If you can't cut it as an engineer, I suppose maybe McDonalds is your best option.

What is the origin of that phrase, I wonder?

"Man Up" or "Batter Up" probably aren't very different in their respective origin meaning or application. Both it seems to me say, "Get in there and do your part!" ("Spit it up/out" I think originated in ancient China.)

We're a bit out of season but here are the unofficial batting stats to this point:

HURRICANEWARNING: 4 for 4 to include a grand slam (courtesy Dr. Dresner's piece).

SAUCYMUGWUMP: 0 for 12 to include caught looking at a third strike eight times; one unofficial at-bat due to being HBP with the bases full (no RBI of course and he took it on the noggin too - ouch!).

ALEXBC: 9 for 9 to include two doubles and four triples.

FREETRADER: 2 for 2 (long singles).

Further updates to be posted as the season progresses, to include new batters who may also decide to ply there wares here.

Change of scoring notice:

Score HURRICANEWARNING with two grand slams, the other for his 50 countries 'traveled to' post in direct response to SAUCEDMUGWUMP and which is one of WUMP's eight times caught looking.

(Regret the oversight, will do better next time.)

Freetrader entirely misrepresents my point. American universities have experienced a decline in IT enrollments. In talking to an IT department head, whose school has conducted research into the decline of enrollments, he told me directly that students were responding to their surveys indicating that IT was no longer seen as a worthwhile career due to the outsourcing of work to the BRIC countries. Enrollments were down at this school by 30 or more percent, and the department head said other schools were seeing similar declines. Students were not enrolling in the IT programs because they see American CEO's sending jobs overseas. American CEO's see wages at one fifth levels when they send jobs to the BRIC countries. So, it's not a matter of "manning up" because no amount of skill increases are going to get the CEO's attention when he can get similar (not even as good, but close) skills for one fifth the price. Freetrader wants to obfuscate the issue. American jobs are disappearing so the CEO's and other corporate directors can make their companies more profitable and reap those huge bonuses. The American workers can go hang. What proponents of globalization have been loathe to admit is that American wages on average will decline to the lowest common wage in job families that can easily be outsourced. Basically, any job that can be done over the internet will see wages decline to the lowest common level. There is no motivation for CEO's to pay wages in any other manner. At least not at this point. Security risks of doing business outside the US may become a factor as some point, but most CEO's are not focused on that now. And "wage arbitrage" (if you permit me that term) is exacting a very real toll on the US.

HurricaneWarning wrote: "If Americans believed that we could pull ourselves out of this mess and compete again, we would CRUSH China in every way"

Of course we could, but there are many obstacles.

The H-1B and L-1 visa programs allow in hundreds of thousands of mainly Indians to replace American workers. These visa programs only serve to make a few multinational corporate CEOs and shareholders rich. And they allow companies like Microsoft to discard American workers after they have become too expensive.

We do not value education, even though all of the countries taking it seriously are eating our lunch. The Tea Party wil make this worse with their bizarre "Back to the 1800s" philosophy of government.

Students are not studying the correct subjects. They should be studying foreign languages, engineering, etc, not "Cell Phone 101" and "Facebook 101."

All of the money being wasted on Wall Street bankers needs to be invested in American factories. Wall Street must be re-regulated as it was in 1980.

The nonsense of allowing corporations to be classified as American entities, all the while creating and operating factories solely overseas, must end.

We need to be honest about Chinese espionage and crack down on it.

We need to throw China out of the WTO for cheating -- or we should leave it. Russia should not be allowed to join.

I could go on for days.

If you look at the demographics figures anyway. So why the desperate tone?

The fact is that americans will always have a higher standard of living than Chinese because there are not enough resources on this planet to make the average Chinese nearly as wealthy as the average American. Hopefully this news alone will make the American nationalists feel a little more secure about themselves.

That said, the decline of America will be manifested in its international influence and importance. China will inevitably grow into a much larger market than the US. Even if just 20% of Chinese population become the middle class that would create a larger market than the entire US. This means that you will see products and advertising going after Chinese tastes. Chinese language will be more popular and its culture will spread. China will have more sayings in international issues. Like the US, if China's economy fails the whole world will enter a recession. Very few countries can have this kind of impact in the world.

I am actually a bit puzzled as to why would so many Americans feel bad about all of this, and feel the need to trash China. In terms of influence, America in the future will likely to become today's England. England is not so bad today is it?

IMO the real reason why Americans are insecure about China is because the average life of the middle class in the US has been steadily declining. Much of this has nothing to do with foreign policy but more to do with domestic policies, specifically with how corporations are taxed and reinvest.

I think some American observers feel bad about prognostications such as Mr. Rachman's because they are simply redirecting the sentiment being thrust at them. That is, some declinists tracts ring openly of self-satisfaction and schadenfreude about America's presumed failures, so most observers' only gut reaction is to hope to feel the same way about China (i.e., to delight in its potential failure). It is tit-for-tat. Just a hypothesis.

I do not think that America and "England" can be compared. America has a vast population and territory. It currently has 1/4th the population of China, but will rise to having 1/3rd of it in as soon as 30-40 years. That does not sound like a country that will slink back to the position currently occupied by the UK.

Apparently you have missed the points about how American CEO's are enamored with sending our jobs overseas. When all the manufacturing and support jobs, and the research and design work, go to the BRIC countries, what's left for us?

The very small, but very powerful CEO class is selling out America.

"...The nonsense of allowing corporations to be classified as American entities, all the while creating and operating factories solely overseas, must end. ..."

How about confiscating passports, and deporting the families, of CEO's who send jobs overseas? Let them go live in (and be protected by the flag and the the military of) the countries they support by their creation of jobs outside the US.

Gideon Rachman included a few little known anecdotes:

Comparisons of the United States to any empire in decline are hardly valuable for originality or historical accuracy. America's Founding Fathers believed that their new republic was destined to shortly go the way of Rome and the Do-Do Bird. Comparing the United States to Rome has been a favorite for political scientists in the two-hundred plus years of our nation's history. If ours has been the history of an empire in decline, then cut the breaks and lets see how low this train can go.

Our military superiority will survive for the foreseeable future, particularly in any contest between US and Friends vs China and Friends. Aligned with the United States is all of Europe, much of South America, and most of East Asia. The antagonists in the world order are familiar names, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and Russia (?), their talk of America's decline might be substantial if one (or even all of them jointly) ever achieve America's ability to project military force without the use of ICBMs.

Here's the thing. If the American dream "takes" in China, then there's no need to "beat them." Our soft power is still the strongest in the world. Sure, they don't listen to the Jonas Brothers in Europe, but people around the world know who Madonna and George Clooney are. But our cultural power isn't just that everyone knows who are pop-stars are. It's that the United States remains the melting pot in which the most important technologies in the world are developed. The internet, the personal computer, and the cellphone, the three most revolutionary goods of the 20th/21st century, were streamlined in the United States. The nature of human interaction for the foreseeable future will be heavily impacted by technology that is Made in the USA. In this contest, China doesn't even rate, and it'll be a long, long time before it does. Its society will -have- to become freer before it can. They may be great at recreating other people's success, but manufacturing their own requires the originality of free thought, and in this China is lacking. Between this and the massive disparity and wealth, it will be a long time before people generally prefer China to the United States as a place to launch their creative venture. It helps, though, that they can awe people out of context with expensive projects that serve as very poor indicators of actual advancement.

The US is fundamentally solid. Although its economic superiority will erode relative to the rest of the world, it is not (as Mr. Rachman asserts) a zero-sum game. For example, in 1946, the US accounted for a staggering 50% of the world's GDP. Over the course of only 30 years, it regressed back to about 30%. A wonder, then, how its power did not wane but actually increased during that span.

I think part of the explanation is that US power is more than the sum of its manufacturing prowess or its military might. It has paradoxically remained a highly flexible, adaptable society even as it has not undergone a regime change in nearly two and a half centuries. There seems to be much anxiety on this thread about, for instance, Chinese nationals dominating particular sectors of American education, without the acknowledgement that such a phenomenon would be impossible in nearly any other nation, China included. Can you imagine Americans dominating a sector of Chinese higher education?

America is in funk at present. But all things must pass. American growth could hit the 4.75%-5% range in 2011: http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/economy-us-economy-economic-predictions-us/1/3/2011/id/31944?page=full

Meanwhile, growth in emerging markets is likely in for a slowdown, especially as China adjusts (though likely not before the 2012 leadership change). Growth in China could hit the 7% range, if not 3-5%: http://mpettis.com/2010/12/chinese-growth-in-2011/

America and China growing at the same rate? Weirder things have happened, I suppose.

I agree with John Milton in many ways.
Historically and culturally Western societies are a lot more egalitarian and socialistic than Eastern "empires" which tend to be more despotic and hierarchical. (Well Karl Marx was not actually Chinese or Indian!)
If the West would concentrate on the more transcendental and positive values in their societies, such as "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité" etc. and believe in a more socialistic/democratic model of society instead of trusting these cut-throat greedy short-sighted financial markets (CDO's CDS's etc.) and corporations to dictate our lives, they can easily beat China and all these other "emerging" countries. On the other hand, if the West insist on doing business and politics in a dirty or dishonest fashion, concentrating on short-term gains, they will lose, because "the East" can be even dirtier and more cunning!
Heroes are made of Honesty, Courage and Intelligence and the world do want heroes do win in the end!

Kidding. A little.

I agree that we need to recalibrate our social priorities, but we need to do so in a way that doesn't antagonize the hard work ethic that is the backbone of any strong civilization. If you set up a safety net for people, and tell them that they'll never want for necessities, that the community will pay to keep their dignity in tact, that the government will always be there to protect them, then you discourage self-sufficiency. So how do you look after the group while promoting a culture of individual responsibility?

I think that you will find that in the examples of - very roughly speaking - "socialist" or "social democratic" nations which I gave (Canada, Western Europe, Australia, Japan) there is certainly no lack of either work ethic nor individual responsibility.

These philosophical arguments tend to go round and round and have much been discussed.

I guess the succinct answer is that the "individual" is not (necessarily) an atomistic, anarchistic, solipsistic island of self-centeredness and greed but is just as much a *social* being.

"Socialistic culture" works toward fostering the group; the family, the community, the society, the nation, the world of common humanity.

It is this in turn which motivates members of said groups to work hard *for each other*.

The alternative to the "social contract" is a "state of nature" where life is ""solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short".

If that is where America ends up, or is on the path towards, then "decline", indeed outright *extinction* is inevitable and just around the corner.

'"Socialistic culture" works toward fostering the group; the family, the community, the society, the nation, the world of common humanity.

It is this in turn which motivates members of said groups to work hard *for each other*.'

That isn't the way it is, and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves. The real insight is that people are neither isolated agents who only seek to maximize their well-being, nor are they only fulfilled in the context of a collective. Any legal theory that begins solely from the starting point of fostering "the group" betrays a basic reality about human nature. We do not self-actualize only in the context of our tribe, nor can we do so when we are wholly absent from it.

I don't mean to drag you into a debate on the topic, which will go round and round, but you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that European work ethic is comparable to American work ethic. Much of France was on strike because the government couldn't afford to keep paying for such a ridiculously low retirement age. It increased two years, and people took to the streets by the tens of thousands, protesting for their right, their RIGHT, to stop working at the age of 60.

Socialism doesn't fail over night, it fails over generations.

Yeah, as we both agree, these philosophical debates are highly abstract and have been done before, and we will go round and round.

(My fault for disobeying my own advice and ascending into that “ether” of seemingly eternal recurrence.)

Nonetheless and ‘cos I can’t help myself….

You wrote “The real insight is that people are neither isolated agents who only seek to maximize their well-being, nor are they only fulfilled in the context of a collective. Any legal theory that begins solely from the starting point of fostering "the group" betrays a basic reality about human nature. We do not self-actualize only in the context of our tribe, nor can we do so when we are wholly absent from it.”

Fine, agreed. The statement which I made of my position was far too naïve and extreme.

“Work ethic” under American neo-liberalism seems to be - to quote J.K. Gailbraith (from memory) - “the rich don’t work hard enough because they aren’t paid enough, the poor don’t work hard enough because they are paid too much”.

This leads to a massive disintegration of the society at large and can be evidenced in the close to zero if not outright negative Gini coefficient of the American nation-state. I have difficulty accepting that the USA can really even be rightly called a “society” in any coherent or meaningful sense of the word.

“Work ethic” then becomes synonymous with “alienation from the fruits of one’s labor” and we have a situation where the USA could be described as the most Marxist nation in history! A rigidly stratified, hierarchical and polarized “society” where the conflict of class interests – capital and labor – are nakedly and barbarously on display.

The Japanese, the Canadians and the Australians work just as hard as anyone else and they don’t seem to have been “spoilt” by having the government provided public services of the redistributive welfare state.

The lesson which I draw from the wave of strikes and mass demonstrations which are currently occurring in Western Europe is not that these good people lack any sort of “work ethic”. Rather, they are protesting the massive injustices of the neo-liberal globalization of the "Washington Consensus".

The redistributive social contract in those countries gave the citizens of these nations a security and a social safety net. These benefits were then forcibly taken away from because their governments were forced into a situation where they – completely against the “laws” of free-market neo-liberalism – were forced to bail the very banks that caused the crisis in the first place.

(You're going to come back about "big government", F and F, "the Community Reinvestment Act" etc. Anything it would seem but blame Wall Street, which is very obviously - just ask the populations *outside* of America whose lives have affected and in some case ruined - the culprit that flooded the world financial markets with toxic assets.

A parallel observation is that all this talk about “American decline” – as evidenced from the article from which this discussion started – has a fatal supremacist narcissism about it. It’s all about the decline of the “Washington Consensus” and other manifestations or projections of American power.

This can be seen to be a strange “addiction” to the universalist “Enlightenment Project” which the USA inherited – arguably – from the French.

The neo-cons seem to have ruined or buried this image or project of the USA, good and proper. See eg. Habermas (himself an universalist Enlightenment thinker) and his “The Divided West”.

Others, however, who are not universalists have begun speaking of a move away from a “unipolar” to a “multipolar” world whereby local conditions on the ground are seen as a far better indicator of the policy prescriptions which are required. More concrete, more democratic (hopefully, maybe...). Indeed, the whole advantage of democratic governance is precisely this “localism”

To reiterate my essential position. America desperately needs INTERNAL socio-economic reform. I was deliberately being provocative by calling this "Socialism". Silly of me. Let's just call it - I really don't know - well, let's just leave at "reform".

In any case, - and this is ultimate reality which we are being confronted with is - the 500 year old world-system called the Capitalist world-economy is in structural, systemic, and terminal crisis.

Consciously or otherwise, we are all now engaged in the political struggle and the creative work which determine the shape of the successor historical world system or system to come.

(Please see the work of Immanuel Wallerstein and World Systems Analysis.)

Nice response. Lots of good points in there.

"This leads to a massive disintegration of the society at large and can be evidenced in the close to zero if not outright negative Gini coefficient of the American nation-state. I have difficulty accepting that the USA can really even be rightly called a “society” in any coherent or meaningful sense of the word."

No doubt the United States is one of the most financially unequal countries in the developed world. But here's a question, is there anything implicitly wrong with disproportionate division of the planet's resources? I doubt we're going to resolve the issue on an FP article thread, but you seem the type who enjoys a good debate for the sake of it, so consider this. From whence does the "massive disintegration of the society at large" come from? I don't deny that it is certainly observable in the United States, but I disagree about whether or not it is pandemic or implicit to the US socio-economic arrangement.

And disintegration is a buzz word that I'm usually wary about. To whom are you referring? I don't feel disintegrated at all. I might be an exception though. So whose disintegration are you linking to neo-liberalism?

"The Japanese, the Canadians and the Australians work just as hard as anyone else and they don’t seem to have been “spoilt” by having the government provided public services of the redistributive welfare state."

On what are you basing that assessment? As it were, I've lived in Canada for some years. I have no empirical evidence, but plenty of anecdote. I won't say they lack ambition, but Canadians have more of a "Just get by," attitude towards school, work, careers, etc. That happy to get by mentality seems to run deeper and appear more frequently outside the United States. Not to say you won't find people in the US who are happy to kick back, or people outside who will break their back from work.

Also I think I'm using a more narrow definition of work ethic than you are: to me it means not necessarily willing to work hard, but respecting the idea that when you want something you have to earn it. That is a social reality that is eroded by more redistributive fiscal policy. I fear the dissemination of the belief that people DESERVE anything more than the negative freedom necessary to pursue their own happiness.

"The lesson which I draw from the wave of strikes and mass demonstrations which are currently occurring in Western Europe is not that these good people lack any sort of “work ethic”. Rather, they are protesting the massive injustices of the neo-liberal globalization of the "Washington Consensus"."

Indeed. That they should take to the streets in protest rather than set about fixing their current crisis tells me enough. Assuming their retirement programs are insolvent because of the global trade order rather than an ageing population that is living off government programs for far longer than intended (in reality it's probably both and still mostly the latter, but I'll run with it), how does protesting against the government, bound by economic reality, fix anything?

"A parallel observation is that all this talk about “American decline” – as evidenced from the article from which this discussion started – has a fatal supremacist narcissism about it. It’s all about the decline of the “Washington Consensus” and other manifestations or projections of American power."

I disagree. I believe, genuinely, that as world powers go, the United States is dedicated to the rule of law, justice, and free enterprise. Possibly more so at the level of principle than the level of practice, and admitting that its record is tarnished by various self-interested endeavors that oppose its stated agenda. On the whole, however, the United States has been a force for good in the world. My concern is not that we will no longer be able to set the tone of justice in global affairs, but that our successor won't even try.

"In any case, - and this is ultimate reality which we are being confronted with is - the 500 year old world-system called the Capitalist world-economy is in structural, systemic, and terminal crisis."

Terminal? Yes. Systemic? Maybe. Capitalism was a beautiful thing, once upon a time, and in its history has done mankind a far greater service than disservice. But I'm unsure of whether or not its problems are so daunting that an entirely new/different system is required to fix them. I'm particularly skeptical because many proposed alternatives run similar to theories that have already been "unmasked by history," so to say. What is there left to try besides capitalism?

(Btw, Jaeykey, thankyou for what I, at least, have found to be an engaging and enjoyable exchange of views)

you wrote "No doubt the United States is one of the most financially unequal countries in the developed world."

and then later

"From whence does the "massive disintegration of the society at large" come from? I don't deny that it is certainly observable in the United States, but I disagree about whether or not it is pandemic or implicit to the US socio-economic arrangement."

It is one of the innate characteristics of the Capitalist World-system that it is an inherently hierarchical, stratified and polarized arrangement of both the individual political socio-economies within it - nation-states, including the USA whose sovereignty and ability to internally arrange their own affairs is severely curtailed and delimited by their embroilment in the overarching world-system - and a fortiori within the world-system as a whole.

Within the terms of World Systems Analysis and its "dependency theory"

"A lasting division of the world in core, semi-periphery and periphery is an inherent feature of the world-system. Areas which have so far remained outside the reach of the world-system enter it at the stage of 'periphery'. There is a fundamental and institutionally stabilized 'division of labor' between core and periphery: while the core has a high level of technological development and manufactures complex products, the role of the periphery is to supply raw materials, agricultural products and cheap labor for the expanding agents of the core. Economic exchange between core and periphery takes place on unequal terms: the periphery is forced to sell its products at low prices but has to buy the core's products at comparatively high prices. This unequal state which once established tends to stabilize itself due to inherent, quasi-deterministic constraints. The statuses of core and periphery are not exclusive and fixed geographically; instead they are relative to each other: there is a zone called 'semi-periphery' which acts as a periphery to the core and a core to the periphery. At the end of the 20th century, this zone would comprise, Eastern Europe, China, Brazil or Mexico. Peripheral and core zones can also co-exist in the same place."
(copied and pasted from Wikipedia)

you wrote "And disintegration is a buzz word that I'm usually wary about. To whom are you referring? I don't feel disintegrated at all. I might be an exception though. So whose disintegration are you linking to neo-liberalism?"

But in so saying, Jaeykey, you are inadvertently and obtusely confirming precisely my point!! I was making use of the "Gini coefficient". That is to say, I was talking about SOCIETY as a whole!

In response, you then talk about the singular first-person pronoun "I"!!! In other words, you have confirmed my very worst fears that there is indeed no such thing as American "society"!! Remember Thatcher's infamous pronouncement? "There is no such thing as society" (OMFG!!!)

In the vacuum of this horrendous disintegration, each individual becomes increasingly atomistic and isolated. They are forced into the Hobbesian "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short (lived)" dystopia as was later documented in the attitudes of eg. in the solipsistic Max Stirner's "the ego and its own"

Re. our talk concerning "work ethic", I thinking we should really just confine ourselves to talking about "work".

Whether we want to be to "Marxists" or not (and I much prefer not to be, but can't escape this Capitalism with which Marxism exists in a "symbiotic" relation), "work" under Capitalism relies upon a stratified relation of capital and labor. "work"="exploitation"

You wrote "how does protesting against the government, bound by economic reality, fix anything?"

Here we are in emphatic agreement. Individual governments are indeed bound, hand and foot, by global circumstances. Both they, and they populations they represent and legislate for, who have to suffer the chaotic and turbulent ebbs and flows of the global Word-system over which they have very limited, at times zero, control.

Regarding America and the American global order. Very summarily, American interventions and projections fail when they rely upon unreflective, uncritical and supremacist "one size fits all" universalism.

In a memorable 1998 op-ed, Kissinger said that the IMF is acting “like a doctor specializing in measles [who] tries to cure every illness with one remedy.” (quoted in Wallerstein's recent commentary.)

(That woefully, profoundly and intensely inadequate "little corporal" Gomer Pyle of a man George W. Bush didn't even have a passport until he became President!!)

you wrote "On the whole, however, the United States has been a force for good in the world. My concern is not that we will no longer be able to set the tone of justice in global affairs, but that our successor won't even try."

(I guess critics of the present order such as myself have a tendency toward the “demiurgical” and hence would often do well to “rein in” these tendencies…)

Again, we are very much in agreement, except probably in our analysis of where and how the USA got it wrong when it did.
You then talk about the order which will follow the present one and very rightly express concerns regarding its nature.

This very much depends upon all of our collective efforts as we (re)construct the successor or future historical World-system or systems to come. The outcome is inherently uncertain. We can only be guided by the seeds of Hope which have been planted in the past and in the present.

I wrote "In any case, - and this is ultimate reality which we are being confronted with is - the 500 year old world-system called the Capitalist world-economy is in structural, systemic, and terminal crisis."

you replied "Terminal? Yes. Systemic? maybe"

Here I am absolutely fascinated by this response. YOSHIMICHI MORIYAMA over at the comments page under the "Unconventional Wisdoms" similarly seems to be to saying that he agreed with Wallerstein's analysis of the world-historically terminal crisis of Capitalism.

But what will come afterwards??

In the very limited space here, I can repeat what I wrote only just above. This very much depends upon all of our collective efforts as we (re)construct the successor or future historical World-system or systems to come. The outcome is inherently uncertain. We can only be guided by the seeds of Hope which have been planted in the past and in the present.

(For a good foundational starting point, I suggest you read "Utopistics: Historical Choices for the 21st Century" esp. chapter 3)

The above is the correct quote from Ernst Bloch.

Whilst people like Wallerstein are genuine and "real world" material and concrete
social and political *scientist", figures like Bloch are really not so much "philosophers" as "accidental theologians", of sorts.

Ernst Bloch - and his "philosophy of Hope" - had a central category of the "not yet".

"A is not yet B"

(Incidently Bloch's Marxist, expressionist atheist "philosophy of Hope" was transformed into "liberation theology" and a formulation of a "theology of Hope". This liberation theology was taken up by, amongst others, Afro-Americans. Martin Luther King is the most obvious example. But also a certain Jeremiah Wright.

Not at all accidently therefore, Barack Obama entitled his "manifesto", the "Audacity of Hope")

(Please, please PLEASE do NOT "Tea Party" this intellectual genealogy and therefore reach the preposterous statement that Obama is a "Marxist". For Christ's good sake WTF could that possibly even mean??)

The point of all this rambling is that we are living in a period of profound historical transition.

And that we must therefore all become "futurists". In the interests of "futurism", we may do well to maintain Hope, so long as we also remain soberly realistic and (hopefully!) rational.

The 500-year old Capitalist World-Systems has moved very far from equilibrium and is bifurcating into a situation of terminal chaos and turbulance. It is ending. It is over.

Our collective efforts in the next 25-50 years will determine the shape of the successor World system or systems to come.

Once again, I recommend Wallerstein's "Utopistics: Historical Choices for the 21st Century"

I find this discussion is getting unwieldy because of the separate threads of debate happening within it. So here are the points I find that we're still in some disagreement about:

A) Disintegration in the highly polarized United States.
B) That capitalism, at least the current arrangement of it, is in "terminal" decline.
C) What system, if any, ought to take its place.

Regarding disintegration in the United States, your response is, strangely enough, what I have a problem with about socialist theories. All socio-economic theories must, MUST, satisfy at the individual level. I view disintegration more as a fractured self, divided against its own ends. Which leads me to my next point.

At the social level, the economic divides have polarized the American polity to be sure, creating one social cleavage between the labor and the capital class. But social cleavages, particularly one as basic as labor and capital, aren't terrible in themselves. It's when they become reinforcing cleavages that things become more problematic. So if for instance everyone in the labor class shares the same views on religion, abortion, taxes, gay rights, and military action, while everyone in the capital class has the exact opposite views, then you've got some serious problems. As cleavages reinforce each other, xenophobic drive takes over empathizing ones, and disagreements tend to become more violent. I know that the United States has become more partisan in recent years. But considering my own parents' background, I can firmly attest that you don't have to be filthy rich, or Christian in any sense, to be a die-hard Republican. That's my way of saying that even if the political parties are ideologically divided by a gaping abyss, their members are not inhabitants of either walled off communities or decrepit slums.

You seem to be taking issue with disengagement from society in favor of a more isolated, egocentric social landscape. Are you familiar with the term social capital? It was coined by Robert Putnam as a measurement of a society's individual's social trust and engagement with the community. It may surprise you to know that social trust in the United States has both been on the decline since the 1940s, but remains more robust than in most other nations. In recent decades, the decline has stopped and even reversed slightly. He's got a very short and engaging article on the subject, titled "Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of the American Community."

My point on disintegration is that while people tend to stay within their socio-economic strata, I don't see this as particularly harmful so long as we don't lose our capacity to objectively consider other strata.

I'll answer the last two points together. I have two real concerns here: systemic bias and socio-economic psychology.

Our current system is only in trouble so long as it produces genuine disadvantages for some people that cannot be overcome, ever. There are indicators of this at the moment. People who grow up in poverty have only a 3% chance of moving out of poverty. Then consider developmental psychology; brain development occurs at only 93% capacity when a child is brought up in a stressful atmosphere. If poverty and stress could be said to coincide, then you could build a bit of a case that some people are disadvantaged at birth. But then you'd have to start asking why some people are stressed. Surely the poor of our nations live like kings compared to others. Poor stressed families in the United States can't lament absolute wealth then, so it must be wealth relative to their social backdrop.

The point I'm trying to drive at is that if wealth disparity is an antecedent cause of social disintegration, justice might be well served by asking if there isn't some intervening cause of social disintegration that the right policies could mitigate. Most socialists perceive this:

Wealth Disparity > Social Fallout (De-democratization, alienation, classism, etc.)

Where I propose this:

Wealth Disparity > Individual Psychological Shocks > Social Fallout

If my model is more accurate, and I believe it is, then we could target the psychological shocks of wealth disparity rather than the wealth disparity itself. Why attempt to solve the problem like that when it would probably be simpler and more effective to just redistribute wealth from top to bottom? That's my next point.

In any redistribution, I have two concerns. The socio-economic psychology at the bottom and the effect at the top. If "need" at the bottom is determined by a vaguely measured interest in preventing polarization and social alienation, then the bottom will always be able to justify taking from the top, so long as it satisfies the criteria of protecting community cohesion. When that cohesion is threatened by something as transient as public sentiment, how can you make a reliable assessment? You essentially anchor the bottom to the top. When you set this glass bottom, you broadcast to all members of your society that they deserve a certain amount of wealth, and that it is determined by how rich the richest people are.

I simply disagree that a poor person born into the United States is condemned to a life of poverty due to the workings of the system. I don't know enough about the development of countries to make the same claim about the global market, but I'm reminded of the Asian tigers. They began industrializing after WWII, and today they are the advanced economies on par with the United States.

Not as good a reply as I would have liked to have given, but I've taken a lot away from this discussion. Thanks for keeping up with it!

You wrote:
“Wealth Disparity > Individual Psychological Shocks > Social Fallout” as your preferred model or remedy for a polarized class society. You didn’t really discuss “individual psychological shocks” nor how to deal with them.(My guess is that you would say “work ethic”. I still have a lot of problems with your use of this term “work ethic” as a purported virtue. Previously I wrote “work”=”exploitation”. Maybe then “work ethic”= “Taylorism”. It *shouldn’t* be of course, but how else can one describe the lives of the working poor who have to commute from day job to night job and back again, all the while catching cat-naps on the bus and dining on MacDonalds take-out??)
In contrast, I’ll give you the standard “lefty” descriptions for the moment but will return to this problem later. “Dealing with individual psychological shocks”= “false consciousness”; religion as the “opiate of the masses” – Pew Research shows Americans are as just religious as Iranians! - ; Gramsician “cultural hegemony”; Marcusian “one-dimensional men”; ideological or propagandistic “superstructure”; “cognitive dissonance”. I’ll be the first to admit or to contend that on the whole these analytical categories, if such they could be described, haven’t really been very good at all and have been a longstanding problem for Socialists. What the Socialists really should have been focusing on all along was simply the vexed problem and history of Democracy itself. As promised, I’ll endeavor to return to this later. If those on the Left have had a preference for the above-mentioned categories or descriptions, it’s because they were grappling with the problem of socio-psychological satisfaction with subordination, most especially in the stratified class-society of the Capitalist system.
Later you wrote: “If "need" at the bottom is determined by a vaguely measured interest in preventing polarization and social alienation, then the bottom will always be able to justify taking from the top, so long as it satisfies the criteria of protecting community cohesion. When that cohesion is threatened by something as transient as public sentiment, how can you make a reliable assessment?”
In point of fact, such factors as “needs” are not at all “vague” nor merely transient matters of “sentiment”. For one thing our modern world made very great Progress when we decided to enshrine at a least a statement of these very needs in the eg, “the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
Article 25 “(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”
Article 26 “(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit”
Furthermore - and contrary to your assertion that “needs” are a vague matter of “sentiment” - there have been for quite a while now objective, empirical and statistical methods to make a measure of a society’s capacities to make basic provisions for its citizens, including those at the lowest ends of the scale . The most used are, I believe, the “Gini Coefficient” and the “Pareto Distribution” sometimes referred to as the “Bradford Distribution”. These needs CAN be measured statistically and empirically. Their importance is recognized by no less an institution as the CIA!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gini_Coefficient_World_CIA_Report_2009.svg
(This is where I have a problem with “social capital” theorists such as Putnam and Fukuyama. I read these guys and basically I think “Why?” Why does it have to be this “volunteeristic” communitarian model as in the case of Putnam or a Weberian “cultural/ethico-religious” model as in the case of Fukuyama? (Actually Putnam seems just as attracted to Religion these days as can be seen by the book he co-authored with David Campbell.)Just what is it about “Society” that is such an anathema to Americans these days?In other words, “social capital” is just a neo-liberal bandaid and ersatz re-serving of the “social contract” thought of the classical Liberal theorists and philosophers. That being the case, why not simply build an authentic SOCIETY, as the human species has been doing for thousands of years now? Why not build institutions? And governments? And public institutions? And public works? And hence public goods?
Is the “market” really so god-like that we can radically overturn centuries of human civilizational achievement in it’s favor??Whilst we’re here, I note in passing that it’s me, the left-winger who is being the conservative and it’s the Right who are being the radicals.I would assert that is precisely because human beings are primarily social beings that “social capital” still remains relatively high in the USA despite its horrendously low Gini coefficient and the grounding into the dust of American governmental, social and public institutions by the Reaganite neo-liberal offensive of recent decades.
On a conceptual level people have built up a completely false dichotomy between “liberty”/”equality”. Surely, the obvious answer is that you can’t have *liberty* until and unless there is *equality*. The two are inextricably linked.Not being able to go to the school of your choice is illiberal, and in the present is closely tied to material circumstances. Not being having access to healthcare is illiberal, and closely tied in the present to material circumstances. Not being able to afford basic shelter and beyond that having the socio-psychological satisfaction of choosing a community of one’s liking is illiberal. Not being able to choose a vocation or career of one’s liking is illiberal and so on…}

Have another look at this map.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gini_Coefficient_World_CIA_Report_2009.svg
This map shows the USA on a par with China! And Brazil! On the other hand, Brazil at least seems to be improving, by most recent indicators. The USA, in contrast, is only getting worse. Think “Jobless Recovery”. Think “outsourcing” of jobs to overseas labor markets. In other words, the monopoly capitalists of corporate America have been engaged (again!!) in a massive sleight of hand. Whilst the overall GDP figures might look ok or better on paper, this has only been due to a massive reduction in labor costs and concomitant massive laying off of huge sections of the labor force.
(Robin Archer of the LSE has recently written a labor history of America “Why is There No Labor Party in the United States?” which makes for fairly distressing reading, at least for those with world-views such as myself.)
And this is why the “bottom” socio-economic strata IS inexorably tied to the “top” in the fundamental and material relation of capital and labor, despite your desire to maintain otherwise. For the sake of brevity, I’ll simply write “The Labor Theory of Value”. Not without its problems – and apologies for the laziness of “wikipediaing” - but anyway it allows to me to arrive as quickly as possible to my main point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value
In the relation of Capital and Labor, value or wealth is systematically and inevitably shifted from the laboring class – who are forced to “commodify” or sell their labor power - to the Capitalist strata. In short, from the bottom and the middle to top strata.

In the 20th century, the advanced industrialized nations were forced to find ways to remedy or at least ameliorate this systemic asymmetry and we saw the birth of the redistributive welfare state. The institutions and mechanisms of the welfare state have remained largely intact in the countries and regions which I have mentioned before – Japan, Western Europe, Australasia. The United States also had its versions. Roosevelt’s Keynesianism, LBJ’s “A Great Society”; Nixon’s (“we are all Keynesians now” ) retention of most of Johnson’s reforms etc. The USA remains pretty much unique however in being the birthplace of Reaganite neo-liberalism. And hence of a very rapid dismantling of these same welfare state provisions. This was so as to enable the majority of fiscal expenditure to go to the building of the behemoth Cold War “military/industrial” complex. Accompanying this was the supply-side “trickle-down” ideology of that era or “voodoo economics” as Bush the First dubbed it.

Finally I want to talk about the 200 year old World- systemic called Democracy, as I adumbrated above. This has been the most significant seismic world-historical shift in the 500-year old history of the Capitalist world-system. Democracy was of course “liberty/equality/fraternity”. A direct historical linkage can be drawn from these basic premises of Democracy and the “many-headed Hydra” which it spawned to the welfare state which we have been discussing all along.

(Actually, Jaeykey, I must offer my sincere apologies. I actually wanted to say a bit more than this but My *real life* (read “girl-friend”) calls and I have chores to attend to; people are coming over and I’m due to leave the house after that etc. and I have been forced to abandon this pig’s breakfast of an “essay”. I’ve briefly overlooked what I’ve written and can only be sure that I have managed to produce a valiant failure, at the very best. I’m gonna post it anyway, out of sheer bloodymindedness and lack of what should be due embarrassment.)

I’ll point you once again to the real source of these ideas which is the work of Immanuel Wallerstein and his World Systems Analysis. I promise you, these works WILL repay the careful study and attention which they warrant. That’s where you’ll get the only history of Capitalism/post-Capitalism worth reading. That’s where you’ll find the only “futurist” thinker in the world today.
I suggest you start with “Utopistics: Historical Choices for the 21st Century”
Then “The Decline of American Power: the USA in a Chaotic World”
Isn’t that what we’ve really been talking about all along after all??
I’m sure Gideon Rachman has read it.
Published in 2003, Wallerstein was widely mocked for his views at the time. Chalmers Johnson got a slightly better hearing. But here we are in 2011 and what are we talking about here? That’s right. “The Decline of American Power”!
Then “World Systems Analysis: An introduction”
Then go from there.
I await your reply, if one is forthcoming, with the trepidation that this horrible “essay” warrants. ?)

Reply forthcoming. How could I resist?

Oh no don't...
Haven't I/we suffered enough already? :))

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67046/robert-c-lieberman/why-the-rich-are-getting-richer

Hey, I'm a student of international relations, and I'm into the standard IR realist and liberal authors. However perspectives like Wallerstein's give you so much depth and understanding of the grand historical and economic/social context of international politics. So if you share my interests, I'm sure you'll enjoy a book by historian John Darwin called "After Tamerlane".

Thanks for that.

The "idiot thing" is that I - and this admission is probably gonna ruin my rep around here- am actually an English Lit grad student. (Hence my moniker.) Of course, more generally, this means being a Humanist scholar, hence a necessity to do history etc.

In any case, we live in highly political times. We are all "Marxists" now.

I really should do a "proper degree" :P

What are you referring to?

Yes, you get it. China wants the world run by a few powerful nations that are smart enough not to cross each other in a serious way. China wants to be the dominant Pacific power, but in some sort of partnership with the US. China wants a role for Russia too.

China sees the elites of all advanced nations blending into a global class of people who run things well and are shrewd enough to govern for "widespread prosperity."

China fears the Arab/Muslim world even more than the US does. If the US and Britain can come to host a population of reformed Islamists, then it will have big advantage in relation to China. In any case China would like the US, China, Russia and Europe to govern in a way that keeps the backward Arab nations from causing trouble. China is smart enough to realize that having military anywhere in the Muslim world invites fanatical opposition and the threat of terrorism. The US does not get this.

China really wonders why the US is always at war. They do not see this as really in the interests of the US or world stability. They wonder if the US is heading in a wrong direction. They hope not. They want the US as a reasonable competitor and partner in many ways. But can any US politician get away with talking about China as a partner rather than as a potential enemy?

Yes, corruption and incompetence is rampant in China, but in certain areas the central govt has made it clear that corruption must be kept to a certain level and the corrupt must get the job done rather than just collect. Beheading a northern Chinese mayor for corruption, among other actions, sent this message. Northern China is generally prosperous and the central govt wants it to work well.

Then there is the Red Army. The Army is currently upgrading the quality of its troops stressing continual education, healthy living (no drugs) and public service. At some point the Army could be mobilized to bring better governance to the areas of China that are miserably governed with outrageous corruption.

No mention of the Red Army makes me dubious about any analysis of China's future.

I forgot to mention that globalization advances political stability. It may cause a decline in the US for many (but by no means all) and some countries may adopt domestic policies that make decline or global competition easier for its population (all advanced countries except the US).

But on the whole countries that abandon ideological or religious fanaticism or oversized military spending for global economic competition strongly prefer a stable world system, one without wars. Only al Queda, the US, and certain elements in the Chinese military, want war.

I just heard Donald Trump on the radio advocating a 20% import fee on Chinese products (which we should be doing anyway just to reflect the damage they are doing to the environment, as 13% of the particulate on the West Coast comes from there). Sign me up, if only to hear the hysterical chorus from the Krugmanites that this interferes with "free trade" (which nobody actually practices anyway). After a while you get the feeling that the tenured elites really kind of like seeing us decline, so virulent is their hatred for the common people with their religious convictions and (cue the spitting effect) bourgeois sensibilities.

"...Starting at the end, globalization COULD be stopped if we wanted to stop it. Globalization is not a law of nature or written in stone. It's just another system created by humans and could be stopped even without a conscious plan to do so. It's entirely possible that enough nations could start erecting trade barriers that would effectively end globalization. ..."

No, globalization will not be stopped, by anyone. The CEO class is now trans-national. They do not think of themselves as citizens of any country. Their boundaries are defined by the fuel capacity of their G6's. They control the lobbying efforts and have the governments of all the major western countries in their pockets. No country, not even the US, stands up to them. They move the jobs wherever they want, whenever they want. To stop globalization will require stopping the CEO's, and at this point I highly doubt it can be done. In the US, the Republicans will not let it happen, as they and the CEO class are the same people. Count the US military heads as part of that group also.

"...Also, globalization does not inherently mean exporting capital and jobs and importing unemployment and poverty. ..."

Theoretically true, but evidence up to this point would argue against you in the US.

"...We need to start focusing on alternative energy, science, engineering, math, information and communication technology, international banking and law, genetics, medical research, space development, and every other high tech industry of the future. If we create a nation of well educated doctors, scientists, researchers, bankers, etc. then we will have NO problem competing in a globalized economy and we won't really care what second-tier, lower wage country is manufacturing our cars or tennis shoes. ..."

I agree up to a point, but as has been mentioned here before, many of the most important and significant ideas have been funded by the Government, and under the Republicans (and based on our current realities) that is not likely to happen. The large corporations are already funding and building big ideas -- in their foreign R&D labs in many cases.

BTW, don't forget that there are lots of folks in the US who do not have the talent/skill nor desire (nor could afford the education) to be a doctor or research scientist. Henry Ford created a lot of wealth by making those "second tier" car manufacturing jobs available. And, don't discounting the engineering behind auto manufacturing. It won two world wars.

I was the "village idiot" in an economics department at a famous university all the way back in the 80's, I repeatedly questioned the fairy tale of "free trade" or "comparative advantage" and was always met with either mathematical bafflegab (the use of fantastical assumptions to get a nice determinate result--they like to call this "elegant') or ridiculously simplified artifice (" a lawyer can type faster than his secretary but it still pays him more to specialize in his law", no kidding I got that from a department Chairman) ; economists are the most tragic figures I've seen, they are good enough at math and related fields to make a decent chemist/pharmacist or something but they engage in the worst forms of intellectual masturbation known, at least outside of the "ethnic studies" and "critical theory" fields. On a brighter note, at least we can look forward to the unrelenting economic squeeze driving some of these worthless academics out into the real world, and let them see how their theories work there.

Sorry Timmy, the future for mankind, if he is to be really free and delivered from indentured servitude, is NOT more debt-based "growth" (a misnomer, as all debt-based systems eventually lead to a total collapse) is ABOLISHING the "Federal Reserve-type" power and influence over us and returning to a bonafide sovereign currency, based on actual growth and not debt.

While "privatizing" certain functions and needs of a community can be cost-effective, privatizing currency is the sure way to total collapse and a Robber-Barron (global) Empire.

No. Give me something of real value for my service and labor, rather than a worthless token which integrates a needless "partner" (read: parasite) in the otherwise two-way contract/agreement.

Your premise/ideology is a FAIL! (That is, unless you're one of "them").