>>Foreigners supply the USA with goods and services in vast quantities and Americans supply USD in exchange, but don't actually work to produce something the foreigners want.<<
<With the minor exceptions (in no particular order) of two thirds of the world's commercial aircraft, electrical power generating equipment, machine tools, diesel engines, heavy equipment, a vast array of value-added electrical and electromechanical products, communications and networking equipment, telecommunications switches, mountains of software, a dizzying variety of financial services products and expertise, most of the world's new therapeutic drugs, vat quantities of wonderful, high quality ;-) movies and tv shows, enough agricultural products to feed a billion people, satellite launch services, the opportunity to sit at the table at the Nasdaq casino, the trifling matter of global security (purchased with copious quantities of American blood) and the global positioning system (no charge). Oh yes, and the world's preferred medium for storing the value of human labor.>
I've invested in the productive capability [I thought hiring Americans to make CDMA for me was a good idea, since they'd got it well underway]. I fully appreciate the enormous productive capacity of the USA. I was really
meaning just the currency export. It's a great export. But from the receiver's point of view, it has some risks which could be avoided by using the world's productive capacity [or even just the USA's if focus on USA political stability is desired, which is what the US$ represents].
>>But what happens if everyone decides that the USD isn't worth 1 million Indian years of labour [or software programming etc] and they start trying to get rid of the hot potatoes so they aren't left getting their fingers burned?<<
<So that they can invest in Indonesian government bonds?>
No, Nasdaq, Hang Seng, Nikkei, Dow, London and other share markets and use those as currencies.
>>But, the game has been going on for decades, so maybe it'll carry on for quite a long time yet. I'm not betting on it.<<
<I'm not betting against it. In the 20th century America defeated the forces of European fascism (twice), spent the Soviet bloc into self-destruction in the Cold War, led dozens of countries to a system of representative democracy and began the conquest of China with free market capitalism and McDonalds french fries. There's more where that came from. >
Who is colonizing whom is a good question these days. I own QUALCOMM. Hutchison Whampoa is buying Global Crossing from the bankrupt USA shareholders. Uncle Al is providing the ammunition. I think it's a mutual global occupation of each other. Globalization, in a word.
I think you are over-rating the effect of the USA in the rest of the world [one would think that the USA singlehandedly defeated the Nazis and that Chinese don't have a say in how they run their country]. It's a bit amusing really. Americans cowered behind the ocean until the Japanese forced them in by direct attack at Pearl Harbour. Russia did most damage to Germany. It was an allied effort. Of course, without the USA, it would have been a continuing disaster for Europe.
I don't think the USA defeated the USSR. It politically self-destructed and the USA spending a fortune on nukes and stuff was somewhat irrelevant. Sure, there was an effect as the Russians argued with each other about what to do and how to meet threat and expand the empire or whether to shrink it and who should be the boss and should Glasnost and Perestroika continue anyway. But just as the USA civil war was more to do with internal strife than external pressure, the USSR civil confrontations were about internal power politics. Yes, Afghanistan was a quagmire and defeat for the USSR, but as with Vietnam's defeat of the USA, it wasn't really a show stopper.
Overweening Poms were a pain during the 20th century. Let's not have overweening Yanks now. It's not a good look.
Mqurice |
