Forget the wars. Forget the wild, uneven swings in the economy since the Vietnam war. The surest sign that the American empire is on the decline is the fact that the dollar is no longer as highly valued as it once was. Indeed, the nation which longs to assume America’s place atop the world’s hierarchy of nation states in the 21st Century (much as America replaced the British Empire as the dominant power in the 20th Century) has now officially called for the end of the dollar’s dominance of the world’s trading and financial systems:
China’s central bank has called for a new global reserve currency run by the International Monetary Fund to replace the US dollar.
Central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan did not explicitly mention the dollar, but said the crisis showed the dangers of relying on one currency.
With the world’s largest currency reserves of $2tn, China is the biggest holder of dollar assets.
Its leaders have often complained about the dollar’s volatility.
China has long been uneasy about relying on the dollar for trade and to store its reserves and recently expressed concerns that Washington’s efforts to rescue the US economy could erode the value of the currency. […]
Mr Zhou said the primacy of the US currency in the financial system had led to increasingly frequent crises since the collapse in the early 1970s of the system of fixed exchange rates.
On Tuesday, the dollar weakened against most major currencies following the announcement of a US plan to buy up toxic debt.
Forget Obama’s plan to rescue Wall Street through an effort to erase the toxic waste of valueless derivatives from the balance sheets of our largest (and most recklessly mismanaged) financial institutions. This news, in the long term, is far more important than any temporary upswings in the marketplace that the Obama administration has occasioned with its efforts to help Wall Street recover from its own folly. Britain lost its power when its colonial reach became overextended, and the wars of the 20th Century which effectively ended its reign as the most important nation in the world, merely accelerated a trend that had begun long before.
As the British Pound lost value, so too did Britain’s ability to control world events prior to and after the First World War decline precipitously. Much like America today, Britain was once the largest creditor nation on earth, but its own failed policies of economic mismanagement coupled with expensive wars and defense budgets ultimately led to its downfall. Within a generation after WWI Britain was a debtor nation, living beyond its means. Sound familiar? And it was the fall of the Pound as the world’s reserve currency which signaled most clearly the ascendancy of America and the collapse of Britain’s preeminence in the world.
We are facing many of the same stresses of imperial overreach that Britain faced at the turn of the 19th Century. Our bloated defense budgets, our reliance on Wall Street and the financial “industry” to keep our economy afloat even as our once dominant manufacturing prowess has been literally stripped away and shipped overseas, coupled with the economic mismanagement of Milton Friedman’s disciples on the Federal Reserve, a corrupt Congress beholden to Wall Street lobbyists and the reckless policies of our Presidents, from LBJ and Nixon, to Reagan, Clinton and Dos Bushes, have all contributed to our downfall. We, too, were once the greatest creditor nation on earth. Now, like the Brits, we have become the Great Debtor, living beyond our means for the last two generations.
The dollar will be replaced as the world’s reserve currency, probably sooner rather than later. And there is little Obama or anyone else can do to stop that. Like Britain in the 20th Century, however, we will no doubt foolishly attempt to hold onto our power and influence, based on our former military and economic dominance, even as it turns to sand and slips through our fingers. History teaches us many lessons, but the people who learn them usually die before the benefits of their hard won wisdom can be put into practice by those who come after them. That is perhaps the single greatest lesson in history: that no great power ever accepts the reality of its fall as it happens.
The American Empire is coming to an end. We can let it go gracefully, or we can recklessly attempt to extend its reach in a world that no longer recognizes or accepts our efforts to influence and order events as we wish. The former path would allow us to focus on what must be done to help our own people, and our children, recover more quickly from the devastating mistakes of the past 30 years. Yet something tells me that is not the path our former Masters of the Universe, be they financial kingpins, defense contractors, Members of Congress or Pentagon Generalissimos will advocate. They will continue to resist the reality we face. And the rest of us will suffer for their arrogance and blindness.
I don’t see how that is supposed to work without a global central bank, which in turn would require a degree of international political integration that is far out of reach, whether it’s desirable or not. Seems more like the Chinese are finally muscling their way into the IMF, as well they should.
Think about it for a moment: 18 months into the credit deflation a puny rise in Special Drawing Rights has now finally been agreed upon. Compare that with the Fed’s willingness and ability to rapidly mobilize its credit mechanisms — which are crucial domestically and internationally.
An important test run for a supranational currency is currently being conducted in the Euro zone. So far extreme reluctance to do anything more than the strictest minimum has been the motto of the central bank there, and the price Euroland will pay for that economically may yet be very heavy.
Lack of legitimacy, lack of direct political accountability are all issues for a supra-national central bank. So I think the Dollar regime will continue for lack of a realistic, workable alternative.
The surface proposal is a global multinational currency that is analagous to the European multinational currency, the Euro. What this would do (if national currencies are not superceded) is (1) price national currencies without the interference of domestic political/economic considerations and (2) provide a means for nations to disconnect the linkages that might propagate economic problems in one country to another through the foreign exchanges system. (cf. Jane Jacobs on the benefits of local currencies)
There is considerable integration of the capital markets; there is incredible trade integration. Neither of those have required out-of-reach political integration.
You have well stated the current political issues when it comes to crisis management. One of the problems in the Euro-zone is the inability to disconnect national economies; the Euro has substituted for national currencies. The position of the Euro with respect to national governments is very much like the position of the dollar to individual US states in the 19th century.
The problem is that the dollar has been acting as a national currency and as a pricing currency; that gives political advantages to the US–until now–and is rightly seen as an instrument of empire. Hence the “decline of the pound, decline of the British Empire” analogy.
The open question that the Chinese idea is raising is whether it is possible for there to be a global currency that is not implicitly imperial. I think the issue will hinge on whether the currency is independent of and parallel to national currencies instead of supplanting national currencies.
So, I’m just imagining that the dollar is at a long-time high against the pound and the euro?
The market is up, the market is down. Long term, being the world’s largest debtor nation, supporting two unwinnable wars, spending trillions to clean up a mess that deregulation permitted to happen (I’m still amazed Alan Greenspan was so naive about what bankers do when they aren’t held accountable for their penchant for gambling), and pegging our economy’s future to financial “services” rather than producing real stuff is a plan for epic fail.
I’m still amazed Alan Greenspan was so naive about what bankers do when they aren’t held accountable for their penchant for gambling
I was too – until I remembered that he studied at the feet of Ayn Rand. Given that he was one of the original Objectivist disciples, his entire worldview is questionable.
In retrospect, the only reason things didn’t blow up sooner is because Bill Clinton and his crew actually seemed to understand (or luck into) what the government’s role in a “Reaganomic” economy needed to be: keep the plates spinning so there isn’t a crash. Inflating the tech bubble gave investors a place to put their money that was relatively safe for the economy as a whole (and created what turned out to be short-term job opportunities). Early in Bush’s first term, Clinton was pushing hard for the US to basically “inflate an energy bubble” like his crew had done with the tech bubble (though not with those words) – that’s what Gore probably would have done had he taken over from Clinton. Bush and his crew, of course, didn’t understand “Reaganomics” at all, but thought they did (all Republicans think they understand it but I think only HW Bush and a few people around him ever really did – HW Bush is much smarter than most Republicans ever give him credit for). And so they didn’t inflate ANY bubbles and let the market gravitate to its own bubble – a real estate bubble which is probably one of the most dangerous bubbles an economy can have. And the real estate bubble was the natural one to gravitate to, given the deregulation in the lending sector at the very end of Clinton’s term in office.
You beat me to my comment about Greenspan. You are right. I am surprised more people didn’t realize the Ayn Rand connection sooner.
Hell, I didn’t even know his wife was Andrea Mitchell until the middle of Bush’s tenure in office. I don’t think I knew he was a Randian until he was out of office (if not, then it was only a little bit before he left office). And I consider myself someone who actually makes an attempt to keep myself informed about my public officials. So I can’t blame anyone for not making a connection, given how long it took before I figured it out.
The tech bubble was not entirely a matter of monetary inflation. It was also the result of the Y2K expansion that caused tech companies to think that growth would persist after the year 2000. Too large a percentage of hardware, software, networks, and PCs were replaced during the Y2K period to sustain the market after 2000. When all of those Y2K programmers were let go, and the sales figures for hardware and software did not increase forever, the usual suspects panicked.
Investing money in new technology in and of itself does not create a bubble. Bubbles depend more on loose cash and few perceived real investment opportunities than it does on government policy, except in the case of Greeenspan. Greenspan apparently thought that giving Wall Street the money would automatically cause them to invest in real job-producing investments instead of inflating paper.
that other “great” empires before us, the Spanish, Dutch, and British are no longer empires, partly or mostly due to over-financialization of their economies?
“The sun never sets on the British Empire”– remember?
where’s their “empire” now?
contrary to what darth cheney said, it DOES make a difference whether we produce computer chips or potato chips.
One need only read one book (his subsequent books are great, too): Kevin Phillp’s American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century to know that we are in serious trouble. (note, this book came out well before the meltdown.)
From Amazon’s review:
“a sign of late-stage debilitation, marked by excessive debt, great disparity between rich and poor, and unfolding economic decline.”
Sound familiar??
Steven, your two posts here are very well done. I think you are right on point with the Americans heading for an epic fall. The shift from production to financial services will have lasting effects.
Can it be turned around? Not with the centrist approach that the current president is following. It would take a combination of FDR and Lincoln and, regrettably, Obama is neither. He seems like a nice an enough guy, but the times call for heroism and leadership of an exceedingly high caliber.
I just hope our nation doesn’t go out in a snit and take the whole world with it. I don’t trust the bubbas in the Pentegon and CIA nor the extreme nationalism that is right near the surface of this dangerous nation. You know my country right or wrong but my country. This may well be a formula for planetary suicide.
our once dominant manufacturing prowess has been literally stripped away and shipped overseas
Yeah, and don’t forget that this was done ON PURPOSE in order to hurt unions as a political force. The Republicans (with some stupid Democratic allies – Clinton I’m looking at you) did this for their own political gain without any hint of the long-term damage it would do to our economy. Mostly because Republicans don’t understand economics anymore than they understand biology or quantum mechanics.
When the history of the fall of the American “empire” is written in a century or so, it’s going to be shown as death by a thousand self-inflicted wounds. And our great-grandchildren will wonder “how could they be so stupid and shoot themselves in the foot time after time after time?”
(Of course, unlike the British Empire, we’re going to be a former empire that’s sitting on a stockpile of weapons that are sufficient to depopulate the world. That’ll make us a fairly dangerous former empire. Russia was able to handle the fall from “empire” to “non-empire” without lashing out with their stockpile – occasionally I’m pessimistic that we’ll be able to manage the same thing…)
Hey Steven,
In keeping with your topic, please use United States, or USA or the like to refer to our country (I even use the adjective “united statesian)
Ultimately, what gives the dollar value is product. But our grand poobahs have for thirty years aimed our economy at being deindustrialized. Everything is made somewhere else. Now America is mostly just an economy of paper. And the papers are now discovered to be worthless. The emperor has no clothes.
What America needs is to be reindustrialized. More jobs. A policy that doesn’t favor shuttering factories and sending the work abroad. And within the nation’s economy and more reasonable distribution of wealth. The problem is that the people who have control of our government are looking for the quick buck (or euro). In this age corporations just move to other countries.
Corporations, in the name of profit, will be traitors to their countries. If corporations are going to be allowed personhood perhaps they should earn their citizenship.
A few things: How can we re-industrialize?
We can’t compete in terms of cheap labor or lax standards. Those things shouldn’t occur either, but other than massive robots that will make few jobs, how can we do it?
I also worry about the tendency of factory workers to be socially conservative but that’s a worry for another day.
Give up our hypocritical bullshit about “free trade” and “global economies” and start thinking about our own economic well-being again.
For starters, we can build the infrastructure in this country to be globally competitive again. Part of the reason manufacturing jobs are shipped out of this country to CANADA of all places is because the cost of health care and pensions to companies is actually lower in Canada than it is here, while the work force is better educated than in Mexico or even in portions of the US. This is a problem – idiotically simplistic conservative narratives on “free markets” has killed our ability to compete globally (and this was intentional – to break the backs of unions). We need to be thinking about sane, subsidized health care and pension systems for every business in this nation, and stop with the bullshit idea that companies should be providing health care to workers.
We can also start thinking about ways to start taxing imports again – especially from countries who don’t allow labor to organize or suppress freedom of association in other ways. Frankly, it would be in our best interests if we found a way to twist some arms in other countries to let their workers unionize (for a lot of reasons – not just to benefit us, but that historically encourages growth of a middle class, which makes countries more stable and better partners).
One more thing: If you ride the wave instead of fighting it by standing athwart and yelling “stop!” you have a chance to survive well enough to REBUILD your empire or revitalize it.
At this point I think it CAN still be revived—does it have to? Well we suck pretty hard but my mind shies away from a world dominated by China like a horse from pointy stick.
I tend to think the Chinese threat is a bit overstated. They seem rather intent on repeating all of the worst mistakes of the earlier industrialization of the west, and their overweening cultural arrogance, like ours, blinds them to a lot of potential solutions. Yeah, sure, it worked great for the west, but we were faced with an undeveloped world ripe for the plundering. China faces a moderately well-developed world that has been pretty much plundered out.
Well done, Steven. But I suspect that the fall won’t be a graceful one. It’s going to be difficult for some to accept where the US is headed.
Hell, you guys know where I stand on this issue. Can you think of any other time in our history where both the UN and America’s largest creditor both said that the dollar needs to be replaced as the world’s reserve currency?
In normal times these comments alone would have absolutely sunk the dollar. Combined with Helicopter Ben running the printing press at full speed and the Euro spiraling out of control, when the dollar does break, it’s going to shatter.
Weimar Wheelbarrows.
If “empire” means the economic and military predominance the US enjoyed since WWII, yes, that’s over. Bush and Co. accelerated the inevitable.
Two things that are not inevitable: 1. US decline into impotence and irrelevance economically and militarily. 2. Chinese ascendancy.
We can avoid the first if we respond to reality with intelligence and flexibility. (Much more possible now than when Bush, Republicans, Neo-cons and free market fundamentalists were in charge). As to the second, China is likely to prove to be much more fragile than many assume. The results of the end of this boom for China could be devastating, causing social and political upheaval that could set China back decades.
The fact that China is calling for a new global currency is certainly news. They are flexing their muscles. But it doesn’t mean it’s going to happen in the near future.