Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And now you know what is wrong with America's place as your self-proclaimed "global empire".
The proclamation isn't mine, but the extant reality for the past 80 years. Whether from a moral viewpoint this is good or bad, remains very much a topical question. Whether a new rising power (or several) will eventually supplant the US, is also an interesting question.
But back to the theme of this thread: rising global prosperity ought presumably to elevate global stock markets. And it's high-time that this happened, since the US stock market has absolutely trounced most other markets over the past 10 years, especially in dollar-denominated terms. Please, don't get me wrong: I welcome this putative global rise, and I welcome the onset of a multi-polar world. It's just that I don't see it realistically happening in the foreseeable future. And I don't see any alternative to American leadership, be it military, political or cultural.
The proclamation isn't mine, but the extant reality for the past 80 years. Whether from a moral viewpoint this is good or bad, remains very much a topical question. Whether a new rising power (or several) will eventually supplant the US, is also an interesting question.
But back to the theme of this thread: rising global prosperity ought presumably to elevate global stock markets. And it's high-time that this happened, since the US stock market has absolutely trounced most other markets over the past 10 years, especially in dollar-denominated terms. Please, don't get me wrong: I welcome this putative global rise, and I welcome the onset of a multi-polar world. It's just that I don't see it realistically happening in the foreseeable future. And I don't see any alternative to American leadership, be it military, political or cultural.
The reason for my comment was that, even among people interested in economics, the number of Americans is tiny, who know or even care about the effects and ramifications of America's place in the dynamics of the global economy. Yet it charges ahead, serving the purposes of he powerful, heedless to its effects. A huge majoirty of American who talk about what is good for "us" are talking about what is good for Americans, never thinking of "us" to mean the human condition.
As for the foreseeable future and alternatives, China has shown an alternative. Well-meaning people with a vision for development, simply doing it by edict. Rather than letting the foibles of hit and miss speculation by what the wealthy hope will be fruitful. The Russians tried the same, but was small enough that the US could cow them into submission.
For the values that say living on $15 a day in, say, Vietnam or Bangladesh, and knowing you'll be eating well and possibly even saving, is better than living on $3 a day and not knowing where your next meal is coming from. Both countries have experienced that kind of growth.
That's ^^ about $80 per person, probably lower than most countries. And 7.7% over ten years isn noit awesome. And three of the four largest categories (machinery, aircraft) don't directly impact the lives of many people, and maybe no poor people at all. The're bought by huge corporations, who use them to increase their own lion's share of the rising wealth.
If you're a seller of goods or involved in the supply chain, you do better in the long term with value-added products rather than commodities. Farming and related are low wage jobs over the long run as is mining in many cases outside precious metals/rare earth. But the rise of, say, middle class Indonesia and a shift from travel by ferry to travel by plane between the islands supports lots of high wage/high skill manufacturing jobs, whether directly (airlines purchasing new) or indirectly (general demand increase in the commercial aviation market, increased need for parts and such)
AirAsia is making some folks in France very happy in recent years:
Rising prosperity means increased consumption of commodities, which puts Inflation pressure on commodities and drives up prices. So long as wages in the US match Demand-pull Inflation, it's not a problem for Americans.
This is a broad general thread about the global economy. It was started six weeks ago, and has generated 14 responses, only two of which exceed three lines in length.
And now you know what is wrong with America's place as your self-proclaimed "global empire".
Let's just say that, as an experiment in an almost wholly US-centric venue, I can't put much weight on your conclusion.
The reason for my comment was that, even among people interested in economics, the number of Americans is tiny, who know or even care about the effects and ramifications of America's place in the dynamics of the global economy. Yet it charges ahead, serving the purposes of he powerful, heedless to its effects. A huge majoirty of American who talk about what is good for "us" are talking about what is good for Americans, never thinking of "us" to mean the human condition.
As for the foreseeable future and alternatives, China has shown an alternative. Well-meaning people with a vision for development, simply doing it by edict. Rather than letting the foibles of hit and miss speculation by what the wealthy hope will be fruitful. The Russians tried the same, but was small enough that the US could cow them into submission.
It is almost unimaginable to find any gross concentration of power, public or private, which isn’t wholly self-serving (despite flagrantly couching its own interest in the mantle of the general good); furthermore, most such concentrations grow arrogant, incurious, and dismissive of alternative thinking or alternative interests. I don’t say this to make excuses, but rather, to aver that no particular example is particularly pathological; and that good options are hard to find. Wisdom just doesn’t reside for a long time with the strong.
The Chinese example is welcome as a counterpoint and an alternative concentration of power, but I struggle to see how it would be free of its own excesses, abuses, grotesqueness and distortion. Indeed, we in America are caught between American propaganda and our own revulsion to it, and from the latter, may be inclined to view alternative powers such as China with too rosy of perception, not knowing its true inner workings and the things rarely aired.
Regardless, the staggering irony of the post-Great-Recession recovery is that while almost certainly its cause was in the US, the recovery – at least thus far – has also been the strongest in the US. I say this not in attempt to paint myself as being altruistic, or some world-wise and informed sage, but from an adamantly selfish viewpoint: as an American with a large part of my portfolio in international stock indices, it’s so frustrating to see those international indices lag year after year their American counterparts. My peers, who invested almost exclusively in American equities and American funds, have spent a decade laughing at me. So, more from a petty and invidious desire for revenge, I am eager to see a reordering of leadership, where the Nikkei and DAX and so forth come to post higher percentage gains, than the S&P.
The Chinese example is welcome as a counterpoint and an alternative concentration of power, but I struggle to see how it would be free of its own excesses, abuses, grotesqueness and distortion. Indeed, we in America are caught between American propaganda and our own revulsion to it, and from the latter, may be inclined to view alternative powers such as China with too rosy of perception, not knowing its true inner workings and the things rarely aired.
You can also argue they've done more harm than good in places like Zimbabwe and Venezuela by propping up de facto dictatorships with really awful economic policies even as they do good jobs of working with locals to promote economic growth in many counteis.
It is almost unimaginable to find any gross concentration of power, public or private, which isn’t wholly self-serving (despite flagrantly couching its own interest in the mantle of the general good);.
I invite you to read about Oman. A generation ago, it was the most repressed theocracy in the world, worse then Saudi Arabia. It was an absolute tyranny, ruled by a sultan. Unlike its Persian Gulf neighbors, it had no significant oil reserves to speak of.
But under enlightened administration of the sultan, it has emerged as the shining model of contemporary development. All it takes is the combinatin of good intentions and the authority to bring them to fruition. Sadly, the western free-enterprise model is characterized by neither. Instead, it is just an unregulated grab for wealth.
Singapore is a similar example. An authoritarian government said "this is how we are going to become successful", and they did. Another is Brunei, although it was aided by oil reserves.
You can do pretty much anything under a monarchy or authoritarian government, especially in a very small country. You can even be "good" for a stretch. So what? History is against these carefully-selected cherries.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
