The Rise and Fall of Civilizations

#31 you state <<< Donwturns in the US economy have been minimized by fed interference. Downturns hurt the poor more than the rich. >>>

Fed interference has taken the form of international wars as well, and fed interference is more socialistic than capitalistic even as they declare victories for capitalism. And no downturns do not hurt the poor more than the rich since a few elite have capitalized on all wealth, if the system collapses they lose big time while the poor, as Marx said, only lose their shackles when the system alters to one that is more equitable.

Then you state <<< If America collapses it will be because the vast middle class does not work hard enough for all the material goodies it consumes >>>

Not so, the middle class has been forcibly addicted through a massive advertising industry to over consumption. They are over consuming and thier consumption is helping the rich and keeping the growth rate in America booming. The productivity of American workers is up, meaning that they are working harder, fewer have jobs because of the policies of the elite. So your sentence has zero credibility.

Then in #32 you write responding to me <<< `` Look at the poverty situation in India, it is getting worse not better.``

It is definitely not because of the IT boom. >>>

My point exactly. The so called IT boom that has created a nation of clerks and chaprasees of the American corporations affects a small percent of the population of India. It is benign as far as the nation goes. It does not alleviate poverty and does not benefit the masses. All this proud talk about IT is therefore BS.

masadi #29

`` a better, more relevant question to ask would be how much surplus is extracted by the MNCs per IT job created. If they weren`t extracting surplus greater than any investment they make be it jobs or otherwise, they would never relocate, robbing jobs from their own to hand over to people they consider less than human (the non-european majority world).``

For a MNC they have a simple proposition. They have to compete in a global environment.
Getting work done in India for a fraction of the cost benefits them at least in the short to medium term. Even a company like Comcast which supplies cable television and internet access to 20 million American companies is competing in a global environment. Not for customers but capital.

`` For example (hypothetical scenario): If 7 chaprasee jobs are created for every one clerk job when the clerk does work that can pay the wages of 107 chaprasees, while making equal to 2 chaprasees only is not much of an achievement to be proud of. The clerk sacrifices his surplus because his white master smiles at him and tells him he or she is an ``IT miracle``- they define the jobs, they define the renumeration, they define the criteria and they define the evaluation and the cheerleaders on here praise India?

The real question to ask is what is Indian government and Indian middle class doing with the IT dollars.

`` Look at the poverty situation in India, it is getting worse not better.``

It is definitely not because of the IT boom.

masadi #10

`` However, compared to societies of the past which had power and control, direct coercive control, which was more subject to the kind of influence that the author talks about, modern bureaucratic societies like the US have institutionalized implicit control, and they have the world as their playing field in order to ``manage`` crisis. Natural demise of societies can thus be managed more easily by these elite, those bearing the brunt of that ``management`` are the masses while the power of the elite is strengthened and perpetuated through such management. For example economic cycles and downturns are managed by the US elite via transformation of its economy into a permanent war economy. Reconstruction of Iraq (developing a devastated country), and related growth in the defense industries, can thus translate into job and wealth growth at home, and a quick recovery out of a recession, while the public is kept busy with maximal consumption and fear, that perpetuates such a system.``

Donwturns in the US economy have been minimized by fed interference. Downturns hurt the poor more than the rich.

`` Bad managers like GW Bush, who deny crumbs to the poor while helping the corporate elite are thus a “blessing” for the world in that they reveal cracks in the all encompassing shroud. During such periods we hope that the public recognizes the facade (or matrix if you will) that encompasses their life, which is a mirage, based on false rhetoric of freedom, democracy and human rights. During such periods we have hope that this system of tyranny will collapse due to public action- of course brought on by acute economic circumstances, which accelerate during periods of bad management by the elite.``

If America collapses it will be because the vast middle class does not work hard enough for all the material goodies it consumes.

Relevant topic. I haven’t read the article … so can`t say how badly the author deserves to be tortured. Nevertheless, here are some thoughts on economic issues …

The long-term US economic outlook does not seem very encouraging to me. There are several factors … mainly tied to the cumulative US debt, an aging US population, and worst of all, lack of social and political will to tackle these issues head-on.

National Debt

US national debt was $1 trillion in 1980. Apparently this accounted for some big ticket items … like the Vietnam, Korean wars, etc. This debt doubled in 8 years, reaching $2 trillion by 1988. It doubled again, this time in 4 years, reaching $4 trillion by 1992. Currently it stands at $8 trillion, and is expected to reach ~$10 trillion over the next 3-4 years. Financing this debt is costly, and it continues to constrain international money markets.

Social Security, healthcare, and stuff …

Social Security is another ticking bomb. Currently the Social Security Trust Fund is supposed to have $1.5 trillion. And all it currently has is a big fat IOU from the feds. This fund will continue to grow, at least on paper, till ~2018, after which it will need to give out more dollars than what it will receive. As a result it will start dwindling, and is expected to go bankrupt by ~2048.

Then there are Medicare and healthcare crisis. Medicare fund is supposed to go bankrupt by ~2019, according to fairly recent projections. Currently US healthcare cost is $1.9 trillion/yr, claiming ~16% of the GDP. It is expected to climb up to 20-25% over the next decade or so, as healthcare costs reach $3 trillion.

We have some pretty big bills coming due, which translates into higher taxes and/or lowered quality of life. Add to this the increasingly expensive war on terror, and the looming energy crisis, and the picture becomes more bleak. All this, while the US consumers continue to pile more and more debt, as they snap up the latest plasma TVs and other expensive, useless electronic gadgets.

A difficult way out …

The only way I see for the US to successfully cope with these gloomy economic projections is through technological innovation. It has worked in the past … but I fear we are losing the ingredients to make it work again. Our collective interest in sciences and mathematics continues to decline, while other nations continue to close the gap. We need to attract talent from all over the world, while overhauling our immigration policies. However, I don’t see the political will, or critical social awareness to make it happen.

Middle-class crunch …

Cost of living continues to rise without an equivalent increase in wages. High paying jobs continue to move offshore, and are being replaced with lower-paying jobs. The unemployment number of ~5% is very misleading in this regard. And as I recently found out … there are unemployed, and then there are the unemployable (those who have been unemployed for more than 6 months, and hence are not included in the unemployment statistic).

Income disparity between haves and have-nots continues to increase. US middle-class is slowly getting squeezed. My feeling is that a thriving middle-class is essential for a healthy economy. Earlier, people assumed that Social Security would pay for their retirement. Soon they realized that that will not be the case. They started putting money into pension funds. Now we are finding out that even pension funds are evaporating, as companies providing white-collar and dirty-white-collar jobs teeter on brinks of bankruptcy. What’s next? My fear is that 20 years down the road, same fate may await the highly-regarded 401k accounts …

We as a nation are too busy watching American Idol and Sex and the City. Most legislation is heavily influenced by big corporations. There is much too much influence-peddling going on for sustainable public good.

I am ok with liberal policies on social issues … but I think much discipline is needed on monetary issues. Collective US approach is starting to betray this view in both regards … and therefore my take is not a very optimistic one. I hope time proves me wrong …

#24, a better, more relevant question to ask would be how much surplus is extracted by the MNCs per IT job created. If they weren`t extracting surplus greater than any investment they make be it jobs or otherwise, they would never relocate, robbing jobs from their own to hand over to people they consider less than human (the non-european majority world).

For example (hypothetical scenario): If 7 chaprasee jobs are created for every one clerk job when the clerk does work that can pay the wages of 107 chaprasees, while making equal to 2 chaprasees only is not much of an achievement to be proud of. The clerk sacrifices his surplus because his white master smiles at him and tells him he or she is an ``IT miracle``- they define the jobs, they define the renumeration, they define the criteria and they define the evaluation and the cheerleaders on here praise India?

Look at the poverty situation in India, it is getting worse not better.

#17, you state <<< So why not have a war economy everytime the US economy is getting screwed? >>>

Because it is built upon spilling the blood of innocent people and benefits the top few at the expense of the many. The profits per quarter of the oil corps went up in some cases by almost 90%, so the 3% crude growth rate is not a measure of what actually is going on, that was part of my point as well.

Honestly, I am not fit to take on such a heavy-duty subject. History was always my weak point. Some time back I heard Dubya saying something very annoying on TV; in a fit of rage I wrote this piece. I guess it was published more for intensity rather than any substance.

Nevertheless there is no harm in listening to a LakaR-haaraa. In our folklore a lakarhaaraa (a woodcutter) is a metaphor for illiterate villager who sometimes spurts out earthy wisdom, therefore a few points.

1.. America is a unique nation, largely constituted of immigrants. I have no doubt about its ability to take care of itself and I am not saying that it is on a decline but it doesn’t have a long history therefore sense of belonging is not so deep. Most people have dual loyalty therefore I believe, if and when it does decline it will collapse rather than decay.

2.. Economics is not an exact science. It works mostly on perceptions of people and nations. People anticipate trends and act on that basis. In addition the response can never be accurately calibrated, we always overreact. A stock market is the best example to illustrate this. This makes economic structure very fragile. No amount of planning or resources can guarantee a long term economic stability. Unease regarding America stems from economic standpoint. The American spending splurge is financed and subsidized by trade surpluses of China, Taiwan, Korea, Japan and to some extent India. These countries have heavily invested their dollar surpluses in low interest American treasury bonds, therefore they are least likely to want a run on dollar. But if there is a run on dollar for some other reason they will be first to exit, accentuating the crisis. It must not be forgotten that airline business has not yet come out of 9/11 crisis.

I think it is not appropriate to compare US with Roman or Islamic civilizations. US is just one country that is part of the Modern Civilization. Leadership of this civilization has passed from Europe to US. In the coming century it may pass to China or India. But the Modern Civilization, based on science, technology and capitalism , will still be ascendant. Where we are in the rise and fall of Modern Civilization is a far more interesting question than the fortunes of the US.

Re:ferozek#18

I agree with you that US is not in a ``decline``. However, Western Europe is certainly in decline. That is where I think we should focus this debate on. Western Europe has the same characteristics as US such as democracy, free market, secularism. Yet those countries are in visible decline, both economically and from an intellectual perspective. It seems Europe is fatigued, it doesnt have the energy to compete anymore and it is rapidly becoming an aging society with very low birth rates. Europe has high unemployment, highly visible moral decline (low marriage rates, high divorce, sexual free for all), disintegrating multi-cultural society and most important of all, no fire in the belly, the intellectual vigor to lead the world.

Europe is also the bastion of liberal politics. The big government social policies such as inability to hire and fire, government mandated wage rates, cradle to grave social benefits, extra generous welfare benefits have totally shackled the European people and made them lazy and unenterprising. Why work hard if you can live nicely off government handouts and indulge in drugs and sex all the time? The complete eclipse of the church means that there are no controls on morality. People in Europe dont want to get married or have kids. You couple lethargy and sloth with sexual depravity and you have the seeds planted for a severe decline. They have tried to make up for this by allowing immigration but have not spent the effort to assimilate those people. We have seen the disastrous ethnic/religious rioting in France.

For factoid junkie to consider:

In latest edition of Business Week, Indian IT promoters suggest that for every one (1) IT job, there are some seven (7) other related jobs. Now, this is what is the trumped up values these IT people are promoting.

I need masadi`s help on this one, or even the factoid junkie can help:

For every construction job, how many related jobs are created? Is it safe to assume that it is more than the seven (7) related jobs created by IT?

And this is what Pakistanis should be working on.

Of course, at the moment, we will not be evaluating the other social impact created by MNCs nonsense.

on #22 and btw, he asked what were these ``few big things`` that civilian governments would have difficulty doing. one of them i mentioned as putting a moratorium on the kashmir issue and to focus instead on improving relations with india. his response was interesting, but i wont repeat it on the internet. :-)

behram: great article from the nyt you posted. you may be interested in knowing that some years back i had the opportunity to ask a question from shaukat aziz (who, as finance minister was visiting the US and addressing a small group of pakistanis) where I pointed out to him exactly the same problem the nyt article points out: namely, that regardless of intentions, he was part of a military government. And as such, instead of talking (as he had been doing) about ``business as usual`` as if he was part of a representative government, he as part of the military government should think of doing a few big things that civilian governments might have difficulty doing and then stepping down.

Time has shown he obviously didnt listen to my good advice then. :-) and he isnt going to listen to nyt`s good advice now.

superficial article. a bunch of generalities tossed together. even a high schooler would have written something with with any informational or analytical value. In both key areas, the article gets 0, zilch, nada.

#18 very good dont worry about length ;-)

US is not frozen, its very dynamic. in late 80`s there were seminars every where in us about the japanese way from Demmings and others..us has few handups still about picking up what is good from others and discarding the bad baggage. additionaly, its immigration policies keep it ahead in the game. e.g. when japan and china will face population problems (due to declines in birth), us is more likley to cope fine due to its immigrants.

#14 by behram1 on January 27, 2006 8:02pm PT

That had better not be true because Washington will need support from Pakistan for a long time, and General Musharraf, who has already survived several assassination attempts and again faces serious challenges, cannot stay in power indefinitely. He has also proved to be unable, or unwilling, to close down the sanctuaries that three different groups of terrorists — Qaeda, Taliban and Kashmiri — have established along three Pakistani borders.

re: Anil Kala

This was a very interesting article, which summed up some good reasons for the decline of various empires throughout history. However, the term ``decline`` when used to denote the collapse of empires is a misleading term, because it can be defined in countless ways.

For example, the Roman Empire was in a state of decline since Augustus Caesar died in 14 AD and it would finally end in 1453 AD. The Roman Empire was politically divided by the Emperor Diocletian into an eastern and a western half in 200s AD and though the western half collapsed in 476 AD, the eastern half morphed into the Byzantine Empire, which saw itself as the successor Rome`s political power. The Byzantine Empire fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453 and therefore, the Roman Empire was in a state of decline for nearly a thousand years before it ``fell``.

The Ottoman Turkish Empire saw the height of its political power under Sultan Sulieman in the late 1400s and early 1500s, and would go into a political decline after his death, but would still last another 400 years before it would finally end in 1919.

As to the United States, I would beg to differ from your hypothesis. The United States might be in a state of relative decline, but it is not in a state of an overall decline. In order to understand this, one has to realize that the United States was thrust upon the world scene by the events of 1914-1918 and 1939-1945. The First World War destroyed the industry of Europe, which allowed the United States to dominate the global industrial output and the crisis of 1920s, which ruined European financial institutions allowed the center of gravity to move from London to New York. Another reason was that, Britain owned a large debt to the United States and in order to pay it, was forced to shift its bullion reserves from London to New York.

In the interwar period, which was from 1919-1939, Europe was able to reemerge from the destruction of the First World War only to suffer the Second World War. With the entire global industrial capacity, which at that point in time, was centered upon Europe ruined, United States was placed in a situation, where it accounted for nearly 50 percent of the global industrial output. However, with the revivial of the European economic infrastructure and the rise of Japan as a global power, what we are seeing is the gradual and the natural ``decline`` of the United States` global economic share to what it was prior to First World War and the Second World War; 25-30 percent of the global industrial output. The United States` economic hegemony was not a result of political calculations but due to extraordinary circumtances and as the global economy regains its balance, which was imbalanced by the world wars of the 20th century, United States is simply reverting to its natural and historic place in the global balance of industrial manufacturing capabilities.

Politically and culturally speaking, the United States is not in state of ``decline`` either, because one key ingredient is missing. Empires, which declined politically did so because they politically isolated themselves from the world and accepted the status quo and thus stagnated, but the United States is still open to the world and this can be seen in the number of immigrants who flock there each year and each year, those who take the oath of American citizenship increases. The United States is a society in transition and it is evolving and not declining; what is seen as a barometer of decline is the WASPish face of the American society which is lessening, but the influx of the immigrants adds a vibrancy which still fuels economic and political growth towards the American ideal of ``we the people`` who still are seeking ``to form a more perfect union...``.

The political ideal of the United States is its constitution and within that document, the measure of the American political power is the phrase, ``we the people``. Political power in the United States comes from its citizens and the system operates with admitted knowledge that it is not perfect, but is in a perpetual political process designed to make it better. Hence, the declaration, ``we the people, in order to form a more perfect union, do hereby...``. Hence, America is a society of immigrants, who are always seeking to make it into a more perfect state and this process cannot be quantified, because its parameters, rubrics and the paradigms also evolve with the evolution of the American society as the immgrants continually migrate there.

Therefore, the question is how do you measure evolution?

Consequently, the United States` political power can be historically quantified, but it cannot be measured, because its evolutionary nature disallows an effective and credible mechanism to quantify it. After the Vietnam War, the United State was at the nadir of its political power and with the Watergate scandal, its political institutions stood discredited. Yet, it was able to revive itself and prosper.

Why?

Simply because, the relative power of the United States comes from its people and they have the power to change the nation into what ever they want it to be. Therefore, what might be considered as a phase of American ``decline`` might well be another facet of the United States` evolutionary process and any society, which continues to evolve cannot wither away since evolution is itself a metaphor for getting better; improving and not becoming worse.

Ciao

P.S.: Anil, sorry for this long tirade. :)