Could second Bush term be *good* for the world (bad for USA)?

[SnowGoose]

I'm not really looking for a silver lining to make myself feel better, because this prospect does not make me feel very good at all, but I'm trying to take the long view here.

I'm going to assume some things that I can't really know, but bear with me. What I'd like is for people who understand economics and geopolitical power to tell me where I'm off the mark and why, or if my expectations are reasonable. Also whether this might be good in the long term (say 50-100 years).

Assumption 1. Second Bush term will see US prestige and influence over the world decline. Good side: the us has a history of bullying international health orgs over issues like birth control and abortion, stands in the way of environmental agreements, etc.

Could our decline over politics allow more progressive, just, and sustainable policies to proliferate?

Assumption 2. Second Bush term will continue job and wealth exportation out of US. Good side: for my whole life, the USA has had a disproportionate share of the world's wealth. As wages, health care, and standard of living continue to decline here due to competitive pressures to retain jobs, the opposite trend could occur in other countries (I know that workers in many places are exploited and don't get what we'd call decent wages, but I guess I'm expecting that workers in other countries will still be looking for the best wages/conditions, so that some elevation of their economic conditions will occur).

So the practical upshot is US standards of living decrease drastically, some developing countries standard of living increases modestly, until an equilibrium is reached.

Any thoughts?

[Vincardog]

1. The scenario is a race for the bottom. All power is controlled by the elite

capital holders. It is a return to the dark ages. A very few rich kings and Lords allowing the vast majority of us 'serfs' to pay them for the right to share crop their land. We either get fair clean elections or bow down to Little georges death cult.

[SnowGoose]

3. a race to the bottom, or a race to equilibrium?

With a much lower standard of living for average Americans, of course.

Now, if you're correct (which seems reasonable) is there a way for citizens/activists/organizations around the world to alter the trajectory of this downward spiral such that as these jobs go overseas, some measure of empowerment comes along for the ride?

[Vincardog]

15. Get a government working for THE PEOPLE not The CORPORATIONS

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. This is just a no-brainer - you're right, but for another reason.

Simply put - all of this money we're pouring into the Iraq war, other countries are pouring into economic development, health care, and education. We're going to find the rest of the world to be healthier, better educated, and in a better position to succeed economically.

[SnowGoose]

5. Good point - and it's not just the war, it's the whole military...

Since it's reasonable to think that at some point we're going to be out of Iraq (whether by choice or not), but the huge military expenditures by our country have been around for a long time, and are likely to persist even without Iraq.

[damntexdem]

4. No, it won't be good for the world.

1. The Bushistas don't care that the U.S.'s reputation is at an all-time low; and they will ride roughshod over whomever they can wherever they can in the world.

2. The U.S. economic collapse will hurt the world economy.

[SnowGoose]

6. Thanks for replying: follow-ups

If/when the US is no longer a significant source of funds, who will care what the position of the US government is? Are there other ways for us to ride roughshod over the world if mot militarily or economically?

I remember Russia's attempts to be globally relevant after the collapse of the USSR. I wonder if it won't be the same for us.

On point 2: if the world economy tanked as a result of the export of wealth from the US - what happens *after* that? Do you think the world economy would reorient or reinvent itself?

[villager]

7. a U.S. economic collapse...

...would probably be good for the environment -- or slow down the coming calamitous "tipping point" -- since, unchecked, Americans are voracious consumers of the world's resources (and I'm betting that the "rapture option" won't pan out...)

[cassiepriam]

8. But * and his pals with be wealthy ...

[SnowGoose]

11. in hell, there's not much to spend it on.

[el_gato]

9. just a few comments

Immiseration is a necessary element of the global capitalist system.
This has been occurring since the first stages of incipient capitalism.
There was trade in the world as a way to exchange goods but when the idea of capital accumulation began to bloom the intentional immiseration of other people for personal gain took hold. So I do not ever see
a world of equitable distribution of wealth even if the U.S. loses
most of it's power. Furthermore, the world is controlled by the multi-national corporations more than they are by nation-states. China is now working very closely with these multinationals. So the domination of the globe will continue.

One aspect of this situation is that the multinationals can use
our "defenses" as a source for applying muscle to unwilling participants in the global economy. However, we have been seeing the proliferation of corporations that specialize in mercenaries like Blackwater. So
maybe they won't need the U.S. as much in the futere.

[SnowGoose]

10. not ever?

You say "I do not ever see a world of equitable distribution of wealth". Not ever? Do you have any ideas of a system which could have a decent chance of replacing the current system?

[el_gato]

13. here's how I see it

We are on an out of control train ride that is headed for disaster.
Hope lies in the remaining indigenous people on the planet who live
in balance with nature. Unfortunately, these people are slated
for destruction. You see, all remaining areas in the world that have
not been economically colonized represent valuable space for economic
expansion. I am also hoping this peak-oil issue will give us some
breathing room since declining energy stocks will inhibit the expansion process.

Ultimately, I hope we can return to a natural way of life not
devoted to the fetishization of commodities. That way of life is what the idigenous people represent.

[Bragi]

12. My thoughts...

The fact that a majority of Americans (apparently) voted in favour of a second term for Bush was truly shocking for most people outside the U.S, including me. This means it's no longer possible to believe that Americans are okay, and Bush is an abberation.

Moreover, I don't really see, and I'm not sure others see, much prospect of voters getting less xenophobic and militarist after four more years of Bush, and four more years of finding out about reality via Fox news.

So the U.S is now a problem for everyone for the next decade or so. What this could mean is that the rest of the world will have to get its act together, and start treating the US as the rogue nation it is.

This means the US will get little support abroad on anything, US companies will increasingly find it harder to do business abroad, US products will start to be boycotted, etc. And if there is much more crap like Falluja, I can even see the UN eventually imposing sanctions, and probably leaving New York.

So the US will become increasingly isolated internationally. There is no-one abroad of any any consequence that is likely to see this as an unsurmountable problem for them. Economic and trade adjustments will happen, but the rest of the world will struggle through it, with help from the new superpower, China.

The US meanwhile will be saddled with a crushing debt burden, and constantly increasing security costs internationally and domestically as things unravel for it everywhere. This will obviously weaken it further.

So yes, for the rest of ther world, some good may come from it. It isn't the scenario anyone really wanted, but it's the scenario that Bush and a majority of Americans have set in motion.

I think historians will see Iraq as the apex of the American empire. It's all downhill from there.

[NJCher]

14. agree with most of your post

But some experts who have been following the status of the U.S. in international affairs say that we began our decline over 20 years ago. Iraq is not the apex; Iraq is symptomatic of the decline. Peak oil and all, you know.


Cher

[autorank]

16. Welcome to DU. Great post. On more US xenophobia...

We experienced a multi year disaster in Viet Nam and we were much less aggressive over the next 15 years. When we cranked up again, Gulf I, we did so with plenty of cover. Now were getting clocked in Iraq without a whole lot of domestic fervor for that mistake (even among the supporters). When this one goes south, so to speak (I'm in a red state so I can say this), the American public will enter another period of hibernation and aversion to misadventures. Hopefully during that time, we'll be visited by alien beings who explain the paramount nature of sustaining life and the problems caused by killing everything that moves .
Corporate America controls the media and we get manufactured news.
Corporate America now controls the voting machines and we get manufactured elections.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/