okay. bad topic. I'll go mope.

graeme

Actually Graeme what you say makes me quite thoughtful. I agree that the world  seems to be at a turning point. Time for the captains to start choosing their team members for the new ball game and the rules are changing. Maybe instead of having alliances we will have every man playing for himself. 

Oooo, good analogy graeme. I always wondered if I'd live to see the collapse of the great United Statsian Empire.

I remember feeling like the world had changed on September 11th...it was so unbelievable because I'd grown up hearing that we were at peace, that war happened to other people (for all intents and purposes, Canada is pretty close to the US...it feels very much like it could happen to us if it could happen to them).

Well, it's not just the American Empire. It's simply the last of a long string of western empires - Britain, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, France, Spain, Portugal, all of whom had their day in the sun - and all based on a superior western system of warfare, and then on an economic superiority. It lasted from roughly the time of Columnbus to - well - to now.

They caught up at least into our league in warfare - starting with Japan then with China - and more generally they caught up and passed us in their use of guerilla warfare.

Then they caught up and passed us economically. Japan was t he first with western style industry arising at the turn of the century. By the 1970s, they were  challenging in car making, an area traditionally dominated by the US and the West - and by the 1980s they were leaving us behind. Now china is leaving everybody behind in everything.

The end is in sight for 500 years of world military and economic dominance. The rules will, i ndeed, be changing.

graeme

Do you think that it is going to be all of the car dealerships.  I mean its not just GM is it?  Doesn't it also say a lot about how the general public are thinking about how we are going to move ourselves around.  I say this carefully as I live out in the country and I have no options but to have 2 cars because there are 4 of us, 2 adults working and next September 2 kids in different schools and no mass transportation.  But on the whole it looks like the car dealerships are dying because the public as a whole are not buying.  That too is a societal change. Comments?

Good riddance. Fewer terrible American cars. Too bad for the lost jobs though.

elisabeth

No, it won`t be all car companies that go under. The world economy is based on automotive transport. If it fails, everything fails. If the types of companies that manufactured mechanical parts went under, so much more would follow. It`s all division of labour; the companies that make engine parts, make parts for aircraft, boats, home electronics, musical instruments and so on.

The reason (one anyways) that GM is going under, is that it was a poorly run company that did not listen to its consumers. They carried on producing gigantic vehicles that no one wanted to buy, despite sky-rocketing gas prices, and they paid for it.

Honda now manufactures an electric car that operates using a hydrogen fuel cell that can be refilled at a gas-pump styled station. With a full tank, this vehicle can run in excess of 300 KM (close to a gas powered car) and produces zero emissions. VW produces a car called `blue motion`that runs on pure gasoline, yet gets the same mileage as a gas-electric hybrid car (due to its advanced aerodynamics). Whoever creates the best (or at least, most viable) solution, will likely do the best.

But GM is not the only western car maker going under or falling behind. The whole industry. once a western monopoly, has shifted to Asia. Indeed, the US has almost no manufacturing sector of any sort left. Asia, within a lifetime, has gone from zero in manufacturing to world leader.

The loss in economic power to the west is enormous. We are also seeing the same dramatic shift in research. And with those two go military power.

graeme

A majority of the manufacturing of car parts for the American companies has been situated outside of the states for quite some time. This hasn't sunk the "american empire" yet. All they do is take the foreign parts and assemble them. This process is still done in plants in the states that are owned by Asian auto companies. Other companies will step in to fill the gap. Last time i checked, many European automakers are still viable companies.

we arn't just talking about one company and one incident. The US economy has weakened so much that there is every possibility that the US dollar will cease to be the international currency, and will be replaced by the Chinese Yuan. That will drive up prices in the US. As well, the US has been living for a good twenty years on loans from China. There is a limit to how much you can borrow - and therefore a limit on how much you can spend on the military.

Yes, there will still be American and European cars. And, in fact, there were still stores open and life returning to normal after the barbarians sacked Rome. The world did not end in one day.

In the case, Europe and America have plummetted in manfacturing in general and in autos in particular. China which didn't even make a car until the early 50s now is on the edge of being the world's largest manufacturer with Japan in no. 2.

Western power is dwindling. Western dominance is over. You can fiddle with details as much as you like. But that is the reality.

graeme

I'm curious to know why someone (GM) is allowed millions of dollars by the government just a few short months ago and then  allowed to declare bankruptcy. What happens to the government loan? Where did it go? Was it all spent or do they have to give it back? Has it been "buried" somewhere? Was the spending monitored?

Also I agree that we are seeing a shift in power within the world, but it makes me wonder if the United States automakers hasn't had a direct hand in the shift. Afterall I would hardly consider them stupid, more materialistic and if they thought they could profit more within foreign soil I could see them doing it at the expense of americans livelihood. The big companies may still have their finger in the pie just more for their own benefit. Are we sure that Toyota, Honda, Hyundai are purely Japanese or Korean run? Afterall weren't we all told to "diversify" our stocks to become more "world savy"? For automakers the playground isn't just the United States anymore. India and China are being targeted as nations that "need" cars. Just change the name from G.M. to F.U. (japanese of course).

Have you heard that you can now buy a car at Walmart in China?

I wondered that too Waterfall - the theme of the bailouts was to protect companies tottering on the brink, and now they got the cash and tottered right on over.  I heard yesterday that GM with its bankruptcy will be worth more now than Ford without one.  That sucks for Ford, who managed unbelievable feats in the past 2 years to pull themselves up a bit. 

I remember the week that GW Bush took eveyrone to war in Iraq, and the way he talked, and the way that Germany, France etc etc etc argued against it - that was for me the week that the American Empire fell.

Obama doesn't seem to be bringing it back up to Empire Status - more like he is embracing the fallen Empire reality and walking up to other countries with some sort of humility & mutual respect - at least some what.

It is a new era - one of possibly Chinese Empire, unless everyone else learns to stand together (there is my Star Trek Federation idea), and one of a new style of economy (lets hope).  If the new economy can't be embraced & lived into with some respect & justice, or if countries can't head for cooperation & future benefit, then we're in for a miserable mess of a century at least.

I for one, don't buy into all of these Fall of Rome. Vs. United States comparisons. Has America's power declined? Yes. But China is a LONG way off from surpassing them as a global super-power. i jsut hope I won't be around when that day comes. Has American policy been perfect? Course not. But I think it's better off to have them at the helm than anyobody else.  We all know how China treats it's own citizens nevermind the people of the world.

yes, the US is still a super power. Yes, the chinese are terrible on civil rights. Yes, china has some way to become a super power. But all that has nothing to  do with anything.

Do you think that the world abruptly went into the dark ages the day afer barbarians swarmed over the walls of rome? Do you think the Carib Indians all became slaves the same day columbus dropped anchor?

I'm trying to pull back and see the big picture. And it takes time for sucha historical process t o develop.

China is a long way from being a super power? I was t here twenty years ago. I see i now. at this rate, china is easily a superpower within a generation. That's not long. The waning of US power is obvious and profound in Latin america. Fifty years ago, it was only Castro. Now it's the greater part of latin america. and the US does not have a response.

Nor am I talking simply about the fall of the american empire. Read what I said. I was talking about the whole series of western empires, and how a whole era of them has come to an end.

Look at t he big picture, and s tart with a simple image.

How much of the world did the west control seventy years ago? Britain alone accounted for 20% of the earth's surface - then there were Britain, France, US, Belgium, Netherlands, etc. all with substantial holdings. Look at what they control now - and you see an astounding decline in just seventy years - and that's only a few minutes in historical time. Seventy years ago, only a handful of cars were made outside Europe and America. Today it's more like 90% It's much the same with comuputers, TVs,  you name it. china is now sending its navy out of home waters, something it has not done in recorded history. Yes, it's still relatively small. But look at the direction and the pace of change.

today, t he US ability to build a warship at all depends on loans from China. For a western power to depend on loans from an asian one has never before happened in history.

You're quite right, t hough, about how much better it is to rely on American control. I mean, I bet if the chinese had control, they'd torture people, imprison them without trial, kill by the hundreds of thousands, invade countries for no clear reason, etc. Lucky us.

graeme

Oh....the bitter irony, graeme.

Being rather close to the scientific community in my studies, I still see most of the major research being conducted in the "West." Of course, I could be biased by my language limitations, but I think it's still a relatively accurate statement.

If this is indeed a shift, what will happen in that sector? Will we continue to move in a direction that aims to be more environmentally sustainable (even though we are not exactly racing to make changes now). Or will the need for profits become absolutely paramount?

Graeme, I was under the impression that the US was investing in China not the other way around? Do you have references?

I wasn't speaking of investment, at least not in the sense of investing in companies. China is not, I am sure, investing in American companies. The chinese lending to the US comes in the form of buying US bonds - sort of promissory notes.  In effect, the US borrows money by selling these bonds on the international market. That was done so the US could spend really quite wildly on things like war, while at the same time keeping domestic peace by keeping taxes low.

The trouble is you have to pay interest on those things, and the amount held by china is huge. So what happens if china decides to dump these things on the market? Well, nobody wants bonds that don't have enough backing - so nobody buys them, and the US goes broke. it's rather like spending on a Visa card with one hell of a high limit.

The US has been living on borrowed money for decades, almost all of it coming from China. So china is now sitting on one hell of a pile of IOUs.

graeme

There's no secret about it. I should think if you just google US treasury bonds china or US borrowing china  you would get thousands of  links.

I expect it's true that most major scientific research is being carried on in the west. But the Chinese schools have been catching up almost as quickly as their industries. We may already have passed the really hot time of Chinese lining up to come study over here.

As to the chances that leading us to a greener world, I'm afraid I don't see much evidence the chinese are keener on  a green world that Exxon has been.

We have had over sixty years from WW2 to prepare for a more cooperative world, and to change the old, imperial approach. We didn't do it.

graeme

You are both correct, and incorrect. The USA is investing in infrastructure, industry and general development in a variety of ways through corporate investment. So yes, the USA is investing in Chinese industry. However, Chinese business, backed by Chinese government is also buying massive interests in all kinds of primary resource industries.. gobbling up huge swaths of land in Canada and the USA. Moreover, the Chinese government holds nearly $1T (trillion) dollars of USA issued debt. Think of them like bonds - they "own" the right to collect from the US government--the US taxpayers. The USA does not hold an equivalent sum of Chinese currency. 

Graeme, I don't think your analysis is realistic about what kind of a country the United States is right now.  No one - except maybe FOX News - is denying that America's relative power to the rest of the world will decline as new superpowers enter the scene.  However, this does not mean that the US will stop being a superpower, or even more importantly, that it will stop thriving.  The opposite may be the case.   Much was made of Obama being caught reading Fareed Zakaria's "The Post-American World" during the election campaign, and nothing came of it.  The American public realizes that the issue now is adjusting to a post-American world, and they have an Administration that is up to the task. 

America has already realized that the gun'ho approach of the Bush years doesn't work, and geopolitical reality will continue to dictate a more measured foreign policy - with Democratic and Republican Administrations alike.  On economic issues in particular, America's prosperity and China's are intimately intertwined; if one goes down, so does the other.  Ties will strengthen, as they have done even during the hawkish Bush years.  This will be replicated with other emerging nations, which we saw in the G20.  When the global economy went down, it was a global problem, and it was developing countries who were expected to sit at the table and contribute to the solution.  Then there's the environment, where the cooperation that is required will be unprecedented. 

As for domestic issues, the majority within America will soon be minorities, people from all over the world who can create a more pluralistic and more tolerant society.  Even with the fall of GM, there's no reason the US shouldn't continue to thrive.  17 of the world's top 20 universities are in America, and even China's elites are educated there and not in Beijing.  As long as the borders remain open to talent from across the world, and current levels of investment in R&D are maintained, America will remain an engine of innovation and will therefore be able to create the new industries that will take it out of this recession.  Giants may fail, and GM is definitely one that should, but think of how quickly they arise: Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and the like all started in basements and went upwards from there.  Change comes rapidly to the American economy, and there's no reason to doubt that America will be as much at the forefront of the green economy as it has been in this one.   

Let's look at the latest precedent, the United Kingdom.  After the British Empire started declining, life for the average Brit continued to improve.  The country turned its attention inward, to quality of life issues, and it has by and large pursued a more measured and more humanitarian foreign policy since Suez.  Its ongoing influence within the Commonwealth, even in countries who went through a bitter independence struggle like Kenya, is testament to this.  I can't think of any other nation that has been so disproportionately involved in things like African debt-relief.  On the economic front, the UK economy still remains an engine of innovation, and its standard of living is at or near the top.  If the US pursues this route, things wont look that bad. 

It's not just the UK, but also the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Germany.  All of them were superpowers and all of them had Empires, yet they seem to be doing pretty well now.  Of all countries, Germany. 

"As to the chances that leading us to a greener world, I'm afraid I don't see much evidence the chinese are keener on  a green world that Exxon has been."

My bad, I must have missed the news about their $600 billion stimulus, 90% of which is allocated to renewable energy.  China realizes that renewable power isn't just about the environment, it's about power - period.  If they can find a new source, they can become energy independent, so you bet that they're going full throttle for this. 

"We have had over sixty years from WW2 to prepare for a more cooperative world, and to change the old, imperial approach. We didn't do it."

I'm sorry but this is simply not true.  Global cooperation is nowhere near what it should be but you can't deny that it's more than it has ever been.  Ditto the G20 and the response to the swine flue.  Even 10 years ago, that kind of coordination of effort would not have been impossible. 

"So what happens if china decides to dump these things on the market?"

If America goes down, so does China.  It's that simple. 

"The waning of US power is obvious and profound in Latin america. Fifty years ago, it was only Castro. Now it's the greater part of latin america. and the US does not have a response."

Yeah, and the response from both Americans and Latin Americans seems to be: "Big deal."  Hispanics are the fastest growing minority in the US, and they don't seem too eager for a repeat of the Cold War exercise.  As for Latin Americans, most live in countries with democratically-elected, centre-left governments that keep good ties with Washington and this doesn't seem to be an issue.  Castro and Chavez are the odd ones out, and are on a lifeline.  When Mauricio Funes of the FMLN won in El Salvador, the image he invoked was that of Barack Obama, not Fidel Castro.  This generation in particular harbours no deep-seated, historic resentment towards America, and why should they?  Their relatives are there.  They themselves would like to go and study there.  In this world, there's more to be gained on both sides by cooperating with the US. 

Graeme, you're undermining your own case.  If you think Latin America is an example of the scary future, it's the exact opposite. 

Ah, Clint, I love your optimism.

1. Obama - wise enough to see the old ways are over? Maybe. But maybe not poweful enough to change them. His policies in Iraq and Afghanistan are pretty much the ones Bush had toward the end.

2. It may be that latin america will resume good relations with the US. But that wasn't what Iwas talking about. The US once had the power to hand pick rulers in latin america, and to insist on trade conditions highly favorable to the US coupled with regresssive social policies for latin america. That is over.

3. Pointing to close economic ties between countries has been referred to for countries as an argument agaianst war. But it has rarely been true. Germany had very close economic ties with its neighbours in 1914 -and particularly with Belgium in banking. But the war still happened.

4. We have made huge progress in international cooperation? And you give the handling of the swine flu threat as an example? No doubt.But the UN has been quite ineffective in dealing with any conflict involving a major or even middle power. It has made not an inch in the struggle for arms reduction. And it is these things , rather than a flu epidemic which raise the danger of war.

5. Western status has been such that our side has been in control of the interntional money supply - with terms generally favourable to us. That will end.

6. It is not be necessary for China to drop all its bonds onto the market. This is like a nuclear stockpile. The potential threat is quite enough to win large concessions.

7. Yes, it is vital for China to find a renewable energy which is non polluting. It is also vital for the US, where it has not sparked much interest. Meanwhhile, China continues ratcheting up its energy use on a grand scale - with no sign in intends to close its coal mines any time in the hear future or to reduce its energy consumption. Quite the contrary.

8. I find your optimism that the growth of minorities in the US will make it more tolerant one quite charming. But I know of few precedents for it. Canada went through intense "minoritization" about 1900, and the result was not talerance but an orgy of racism and hatred.

9. The UK economy is going great? Are you for real?

10. Yes, China still turns a good deal to western universities. But the slackening of interest is already showing. And that will incerase.

Really, Clint, I have been watching you drift to high Toryism with a certain awe and even respect. But you should not combine it with Pollyannism.

graeme

1.  Obama has always said that he believed the real fight is in Afghanistan, with the Taliban.  On this, he is right and has followed suit by shifting more troops there.  As for Iraq, a sudden withdrawal would be catastrophic.  That's just common-sense.  Wars are a lot harder to end than they are to start.  Obama did not want to be inheriting Bush' mess in Iraq.   

2.  And the sky hasn't fallen in America.  That was my point. 

3.  But war is no longer in China's interest, either economic or political.  Look at how much influence it exercises not only its own backyard but also Africa, without a shot fired.  I highly doubt the US will go to war with China, for obvious reasons.  Or should I say reason.  As for spin-off wars, those are messy and unpredictable, ditto the Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan.  China seems fanatically keen to keep its own backyard stable, and I don't see how this will change anytime soon.  Now that he's overstepped so egregiously, just watch and see how hard they'll come down on Kim.

4.  It's not just about the UN.  It's about things like trade between countries, or the influx of foreign cultures, or the sheer number of people who either live or study in a country which they weren't born in.  Boundaries are a lot more fluid, and this applies on an unprecedented level.  The fact is, the number of people killed in wars today is smaller than it has ever been at any other time in history.  Last year, we had 4 coups worldwide, one in Thailand of course, where this seems to be a breakfast ritual.  I'm not saying that everything is nice and dandy, but that things have changed, and the potential is there to both undo this change or make it permanent.   

5.  This is already happening, and we can adapt to that.  Everyone else seems to have, ditto the G20. 

6.  I don't deny that. 

7.  No contestation on this point too.  But the environment should be a priority for very political reasons.  And China can be an engine for technological innovation in green industries.  For example, their car companies seem determined to produce a cheap and good quality car that runs entirely on electricity.  It's things like that which will give them the edge.  Practical Americans know this. 

8.   We've also been going through intense minoritization for the past several decades, and we are a more tolerant society as a consequence.  Guess you're the one who hasn't been paying attention.  The same applies for the United States.  I hope I don't need to bring up the example of Obama, but in something like attitudes towards gay and lesbian people, the change has been immense from even ten years ago.  There's still a long way to go, but consider where we came from?  30 years ago, this was a medical disorder.  If that isn't change, I don't know what is. 

9.  They're suffering through this recession like everyone else, the US, Germany, China, Japan.  They're still a very powerful economy. 

10.  Because China is creating it's own super-class universities?  And that is bad for humankind how exactly?  If a cure for cancer is discovered in China instead of California, what difference does it make?  Maybe that the Chinese will probably mass produce it and sell it at dollar-store prices, which seems to be their overall strategy. 

"Really, Clint, I have been watching you drift to high Toryism with a certain awe and even respect."

Yes, anyone who doesn't share your view of the United States is a Tory.  Since when did conservatives have a monopoly on admiring the US?  If I recall, not that long ago, the regicidal republic stood for everything the Old World Tory was supposed to hate.  It still does. 

" But you should not combine it with Pollyannism."

You're stuck in a Cold War paradigm.  I'm completely realistic about where things could head to, but we are at a make-it or break-it moment, and if we make it, things could start to look a lot better.   

I have no quarrel with conservatives. I think real conseratism ( as opposed to simply siding with the rich and powerful) makes sense.

Oh, clint, we are now becoming more tolerant because we have more minorities? Big mistake to draw conclusions based on a short and recent period.  Big mistake to assume common interests equate with peace. More commonly, common interests lead directly to war.

And I don't hink it's at all a bad thing that chinese universities will play a bigger role in research. I'm simply pointing out they will come to rely less on us. And also pointing out that university research gives its owner the edge in technology - and our dominance of that edge will decline.

Also that dominance gives the dominant power to shape deals favourable to its position. And we will be losing that edge.

Without getting bogged down in details, to be frank, with Pollyanna simplification, The reality is we westeners  have dominated for  500 years - and that clear domination has been collapsing for over 60 years.

That h as consequences. To pretend that life will go on as normal is pretty naive. We will not suddenly have to move into caves and all of us become jehovah witnesses. But the world is watching a massive shift in the balance of power.

we had very cheap oil for decades because we controlled those nations which produced it. We had cheap bananas because American companies could dictate production conditions and prices in latin america. ditto coffee. We get cheap computers and TV sets and much else because we still have much of the world at our feet. But that period is ending, and there will be consequences. To say that most latin american countries intend to continue friendly relations with the us is true. But they don't intend to continue to continue those relations at the price of primitrive living standards as set by diktats of american companies.

The balance of power still means something, and there are consequences to its shift - particularly on this tremendous scale.

The US has been living on borrowed money for decades as its manufacturing base withers. The American credit card is pretty well maxed out. And i see no sign of the new economy to replace manuracturing. The airy assurances that all is well and all we have to do is show the will and change things is very nice. It's the sort of vague wand waving that Obama specializes in. but i must say the details are fuzzy.

Oh? And Afghanistan is the war that must be fought?  Why? Especially as we fight a war that a) we are losing and b) may well lead to the collapse of Pakistan - why?

As to th e 50,000 troops staying in Iraq and, as you say,  necessary - and I'm sure you're right - here is a war in which over a million have been killed over a period of seven  years or so and has some five million refugees and almost everybody unemployed- and which is still in danger of collapse without at least 50,000 american troops on  hand.

This is more time than it took to defeat Germany, Japan and italy. it has been at phenomenal cost - and it still isn't over. and it really still isn't won. One of my points, you many recall, is that such "colonial" wars are no longer cheap and winnable. Think hard over the meaning of these last two paragraphs.

And.please, do not confuse the honorable state of conservativism with airy confidence. If you do, that means law school for sure.

graeme

"Oh, clint, we are now becoming more tolerant because we have more minorities?"

I don't know where to even begin answering this question.  If you think there's been no progress in how minorities in this country are treated, you're on another planet.  That doesn't mean racism still doesn't exist, just that things have changed immensely.  Where to start?  Lets have a look at our cities.  Not even our cities, it's spilled over to places like Nova Scotia.  Or our universities?  Our medical and engineering schools? Or our hospitals, or engineering firms, or businesses?  Or our armed forces?  Or how about the fact that 1 in 5 of our marriages are inter-racial? Or the public support behind Bill C-38?  Sure graeme, nothing has changed since the 1980's. 

-Regarding universities, America has a very good edge there and it will take a while for someone to catch up.  Even when they do, I still don't see how this is bad for the US.  It's universities will continue to do what they've always done so well.  Living standards for the average American wont drop because China can innovate too - the opposite is the case.   

-And yes, we are witnessing a shift in the balance of power.  I'm not saying that that wont have consequences, but that America can thrive in the new world for exactly the same reasons that the developing world is now thriving.  America of all countries is best situated to make that shift.  And the new countries that are rising - China, Brazil, India - none of them have an interest in going to war with each other, and all of them stand to lose a great deal if they do.  Not only is there a nuclear option, but if a war were to break out between any one of them, it would be a total war not a 19th century isolated skirmish.  There's far too much at stake, and the benefits simply aren't there.  Look at China's behaviour over the past 3 decades: it's been measured and tame.  India has handled Pakistan with maturity, and the last election was a resounding mandate for that approach.  As for Brazil...the only war they seem to have their minds on is the soccer one. 

-As for cheap TV sets, having the rest of the world at our feet is not the reason they're cheap. 

-Latin American living standards are primitive for many reasons.  Good way to simplify.  How rising prosperity there is bad for us, I fail to see.  You'll have a better educated workforce that can create better products.  So, more innovation from more parts of the world.  We'll have to up our game to keep up but it's exactly this kind of competition the US economy can accomodate. 

-You don't see signs of the new economy because you're not looking.  It's still the best place in the world to do business. 

- Afghanistan is the war to be fought because of the Taliban.  Pakistan ignored this until very recently, at their peril. 

Wow! Pollyanna lives. Also Pangloss as all is the best possible in this best of all possible worlds.

The developing world is prospering? No it isn't. Rates of starvation may be actually rising.

Higher living standards in latin america are good for us? tell the coffee internationals and the United Fruit Company that.

Tolerance is rising? Yep, You just have to pick the right areas to look at - ignore Rwanda, ignore eastern Europe, ignore the 'crusade" we're embarked on....

We had to fight Afghanistan because of the Taliban? Why? What is the hope you can replace the Taliban with anything better? Where do you get the idea the the Taliban is all we're fighting? And you certainly vastly simplify what's going on in Pakistan and what caused it.

And with such confidence?

High tory, for sure. And undoubtedly High Church.

graeme

"

The developing world is prospering? No it isn't. Rates of starvation may be actually rising."

Let's see the numbers, graeme.  Until this recession hit, the number of people living on less than a $1 had been reduced dramatically; in China alone, 400 million fewer people are living beneath the poverty line.  If you really think there's been no change, take a trip to Turkey, or Brazil, or best of all, Beijing, and tell them that the developing world is not developing.  I never said that massive poverty didn't exist, but that the amount of people who have been lifted out of it during the past 2 decades is unprecedented.  This is not Pollyanism, it's a fact.  Environmental degradation would not be the issue that it is if it weren't for so many people enjoying a better standard of living; it's a consequence of growth. 

"Higher living standards in latin america are good for us? tell the coffee internationals and the United Fruit Company that."

Yeah, and that's entirely what America's prosperity is built on.  Sure graeme.  Your knowledge of contemporary economics stuns me. 

"Tolerance is rising? Yep, You just have to pick the right areas to look at - ignore Rwanda, ignore eastern Europe, ignore the 'crusade" we're embarked on...."

I was talking about us. 

But hey, let's not let the facts distract you from your fatalism.  In your world, America is an evil empire with no redeeming qualities and you're dead-set in dismissing any evidence to the contrary.   All going downhill, no potential otherwise at all.  You're about 40 years out of date, using the same post-colonial Cold War prism of seeing things.  Ralph Nader all the way graeme, 'No difference between Bush and Gore." 

And youo are a hopeless pollyanna.

The internatiotional fruit and coffeed companies are happy to see prosperity in latin america/ That's the news economics? Really? That's why the US got rid of an elected government in Haiti? That's why they killed 200,000 Maya indians in Guatemala? I've no doubt that dramaticaly reduced the number of poor in the world, though.

China has reduced poverty? And I'm anti-American for not recognizing that? What does the reduction of poverty in China have to do with American policies?

When you talk about the growth of tolerance, you're talking about us, not about the rest of the world? I'm glad to hear it. but you're initial statement was not just about us, but about the world in general. For that matter, while I'm h appy that gays are more tolerated, I'm not sure they are the world's most discriminated or only discriminated against. And even here, as you survey toleration, would you say moslems are more tlerated than ever before? And would you consider the wide use of torture a sign of advance in toleration?

We are in a  post colonial world?? Rreally? When western governments routinely invade countries for economic reasons (Iraq springs to mind),  still routinely intervene in late america, when private companies have their own colonial armies - as in Congo, this is a post colonial world. 

You knowledge of contemporary economics and behaviour is quite - different.

for openers, you tell us world poverty has dropped at unprecedented rates - and you imply this something to do with a new form of economics. that is a crock.

In f act, almost all the drop in world poverty is due to the drop in China - and the drop in china is scarcely ther result of any change in our economic thinking. Generally, there is a very slight drop in other places - not something I would describe so breathlessly as unprecedented. And how interesting you point to China's drop in poverty while ignoring India's rise in poverty. And India is a kind of big country, too.

But I can see your future. You will forever enjoy the view of the world from the window of a faculty club.

graeme

I'm biting my lip at the moment. :)

hey, whatever turns you on.

but don't bite my lip.

graeme

"The internatiotional fruit and coffeed companies are happy to see prosperity in latin america/"

Never said that.  Straw-man. 

"but you're initial statement was not just about us, but about the world in general. "

I was talking about us.  I wouldn't claim that about the rest of the world.  In Europe in particular, there's a worrying resurgence in far-right political movements, even in Britain, where fascist movements have politically done a lot worse than on the Continent. 

"And even here, as you survey toleration, would you say moslems are more tlerated than ever before? "

A long way to go sure, but most Muslims in North America are better educated and have a higher standard of living than most non-Muslims, and from what I've encountered in Toronto and Halifax, pretty well integrated.   

"And would you consider the wide use of torture a sign of advance in toleration?"

With you on this one.  You're arguing against a straw-man. 

"In f act, almost all the drop in world poverty is due to the drop in China - and the drop in china is scarcely ther result of any change in our economic thinking."

Not only ours but theirs too.  And the change is not only in China; have a look at Latin America too, particularly Brazil and Chile. 

"And how interesting you point to China's drop in poverty while ignoring India's rise in poverty. And India is a kind of big country, too."

Once again, straw-man.  I never once denied that India is far behind China despite the explosive growth we've seen in the past several years.  They didn't start reforming until the last decade, and even then it's been hap-hazard.  However, let's consider the starting point: before Singh's reforms in the 1990's, India barely grew by 1% annually since independenc.  It was called the "Hindu growth rate', and the results were devastating.  There was hardly a middle-class and Indians with any education and any hope of a career that didn't involve the civil service simply left the country, and everywhere else they seemed to do quite well - except in India. 

"We are in a  post colonial world?? Rreally? When western governments routinely invade countries for economic reasons (Iraq springs to mind),  still routinely intervene in late america, when private companies have their own colonial armies - as in Congo, this is a post colonial world."

Once again graeme, straw-man.  I said that the amount of influence Western governments exercise over the rest of the world is a lot less today than it's been in quite a while.  If it wasn't, we wouldn't be begging the G20 to help us sort this mess out.  In fact, this seems to be what you said. 

"But I can see your future. You will forever enjoy the view of the world from the window of a faculty club."

This is particularly untrue; I've been to places, and I have no interest in an academic career.  You're the professor here, not I.  Perhaps you're one of those self-loathing professors who likes to distance himself from academia and prides himself on having the common touch? 

Spare me your righteous indignation.  You're arguing against straw-men, which tends to be your habit whenever someone disagrees. 

As for GM, you are right about one thing: this does augur in the death of the post-50's American working-class dream.  Back in the day, one could leave high-school, go to the local GM plant and get a job that would allow him to purchase a car, a 2-storey house and keep the wife at home.  Those days are gone, mainly because with the rise of developing economies the number of people in the global workforce has doubled. 

As a whole, the West no longer has the edge it once did; manufacturing jobs wont pay as they used to because other countries can now compete with American industries.  American kids who are in school now will be competing not only against other Americans, but against Chinese, Indians, South Koreans, and so on.  In order to even consider the typical middle-class lifestyle, dad having a manufacturing job wont be enough; both parents will need some kind of post-secondary qualifacation, and both will need to be working.  The California dream of a spacious house, a two-car garage and a patio with a huge grill on it wont be something average middle-class people can afford.  Instead, it will be reserved for the most well educated of professionals.  Look at real incomes in America for the past 2 decades, and they've fallen across all education levels except one: professional graduates - lawyers, doctors, MBAs, etc. 

No one seems to be saying that collectively, we'll get poorer.  The right is too busy telling us how the market will take us to the moon, whereas the left is trying to find a bogeyman for why the average Joe finds it a lot harder to life as comfortably as he did in the 1950's.  The banks, neoliberalism, CEOs, the rich, etc. are the usual suspects.  We're not here, however, because of a few errant bankers, but because the rest of the world caught on.  

I'm not denying that this will be the case, and that the kind of prosperity America has enjoyed thus far will be a lot harder to come by.  My point is that America is capable of adapting to these new realities, and still being an economic superpower in them.  These are the 3 biggies: 

-If Americans are going to stand a chance against the Chinese and the South Koreans, public education will need to improve, as will the number of people with post-secondary training, even if it's not university. 

-Energy is going to have to get a lot smarter. 

-Healthcare costs will have to be reigned in. 

There's no guarantee that the US will pull this off.  In fact, it very well may not. 

*drive by Latin joke*

Decline of Imperial Rome, eh?

Oh those Romans... they're always declining.