The Americans will never accept the loss of their dominant position in the world. No matter the cost.

I guess your fear is not that the US is today's Austro-Hungarian empire, but that an obnoxious nation is tomorrows American.

empire and republic

Mr Grunberg, perhaps you could distinguish between the US Empire and the US republic.
I couldn't imagine why anyone would wish for the destruction of the US republic (it has been in decline for decades, I'd say ever since president Kennedy was killed by the US national security state). But I can imagine why millions of people (in the US and abroad) would welcome the decline of the US military and financial empire (which is very costly, not so much for the US itself as for any country that can't escape using dollars; not to mention the death and destruction it brings about militarily).

Indeed (sorry, in Dutch):
http://tinyurl.com/357pkql
-De Morgen

Herman Meester

I’m not sure if the fall of the American empire would be a positive development for the US and the rest of the world.

Arnon Grunberg

One of the things that the US empire is killing is the US republic. Would you sacrifice the republic for the empire?

The US shows what capitalism will ultimately do to a country.

Meester

Isolationism.

Arnon Grunberg

It is what many countries are now trying to achieve: to isolate the United States financially in order to get rid of the US's dollar-based free lunch.
Whether that's a good thing or not, it will happen sooner or later.
See for instance http://tinyurl.com/2vlm9w6 (economist Michael Hudson).

But, Mieke, we should also not forget how much we need the Americans when 'shit hits the fan', so to speak. But hey, who knows, maybe one day we find ourselves capable of cleaning up our own mess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_States

Meester

De-dollarization?As long as the price of a barrel of oil is quoted in US dollars I can only say: de-dollarization? I believe it when I see it.

Arnon Grunberg

It agree it won't be happening this week.

But Michael Hudson has been right before. He predicted the collapse of the US real estate/mortgage bubble when most others were still singing hallelujah. For instance in "The new road to serfdom - An illustrated guide to the coming real estate collapse", in Harper's Magazine, May 2006.

One of the first things that happened after the US took over power in Iraq in 2003 is to restore the petrodollar in Iraq. One of the issues the US has with Iran is that it wants to get rid of the dollar too. So the world is not sticking with the dollar without the US using military force or threatening to do so.

I linked to Hudson's "De-dollarization" article to show that isolation of the US is what much of the rest of the world would like to achieve. The empire itself has everything to lose by it.

To be sure, I would agree that many organisms benefit from parasitic relationships, even if they are the host. That is perhaps the appropriate metaphor when describing the world economy.

Herman, this piece by Friedman made me think of your discussion. So here it is: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/opinion/15friedman.html?_r=1&ref=thomaslfriedman

aliefka ...

Thanks,
I disagree with much of what he says there.
But he does know how to write in a fashion that makes it all look like the truth.
"The globe's stabilizing power" as a euphemism for the British empire, which exploited, expropriated, waged wars, divided and conquered. It's brilliant. And of course as a euphemism for the US empire too.

"The world has been a better place for it."

Only if one ignores the dozens of illegal wars and US-sponsored coups that benefit only US corporate capitalism and nothing else.
It was the US, for instance, that put Saddam Hussein in power. When was the last time Thomas Friedman or his NYT addressed that? Why did it install Pinochet, or try to get rid of Hugo Chavez (democratically elected), help destroy Afghanistan by supporting the reactionary mujaheddin, or destroy the democratic Mosaddeq government in Iran and install the (hated) Shah?
Not to mention Angola, Grenada, Panama, Libya, the decades-long boycott of Cuba, its support for Apartheid, the destruction of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, the support for the Suharto genocide in East Timor, its destruction of Yugoslavia (by supporting all kinds of fascists in Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc.).
And why did this guardian of a Better Place need to kill one of its presidents (in 1963)? In China, Friedman would have called that a coup d'etat.

"The world has been a better place for it."

I realize how unfashionable criticism of the US globalization empire is today. It's very uncool to do so, because it feels so much better to be on the side of the winners, no matter how ruthless they are.
But it does have something to do with ignorance, I'm afraid.

Perhaps I myself am the hypocrite and do I object to the celebration of this empire by its fans, more than to its actions?
I hope not, but on the other hand, I also enjoy decadent things such as chess.

Herman, I'm not sure about what to think exactly (as I'm not en expert on the US empire). All that I can say is I noticed how Americans such as Friedman speak of themselves/their country/"us" in terms of greatness. Their basic frame of mind is so entirely opposite to what mine would be. It's interesting. And, of course it's ignorant to be fashionable. But perhaps it's also opportunistic. Being weak/vulnerable means one has to be opportunisic to survive.