US attitude further isolating it from global interest and economy
I have noticed something lately, the unilateralist attitude of the US, (coupled with the unconsciouse perception that we have been immasculated (castrated) in public) is quickly eroding our economic interests abroad, as well as the benevolence of our friends as well, of course, as that of our enemies.
THere have been numerous things which lead me to see this lately, here are some:
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/02/business/businessspecial/02TUBE.html"; target="_blank">US TV SHOWS losing potency abroad (reg required)</a>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/international/europe/31FRAN.html"; target="_blank">They Choke On Coke but Savor Mecca Cola (reg required)</a>
And then a book that summs up what I fear will eventually be the case: THE END OF THE AMERICAN ERA
U.S. Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the 21st Century
By Charles A. Kupchan
Which states that the continued Isolationist and unilateralist attitude of the US will merely drive a wedge into our relations to all other countries. We forget that competition is the norm and the once powerfull countries who's noses we constantly rub in the shiit of our arrogant monomania will eventually, with glee, eclipse our economic powerr and, eventually, because of loss of economic hegemony, our military might.
We see even our long standing relationship to the country that we saved and lost many men for, a country that we stand to risk 37,000 soldiers for their benefit, we see even that relationship eroding because of the manner in which we are "going it alone" or, doing it the way that we want.
Our stand on the Kyoto accords
our stand on Iraq
and our general insistence that we are the most powerfull and "best" . . . all of these are very quickliy eroding the place of the US in the favor of the international scene.
and what I fear that many do not understand is that the loss of that 'favor' WILL translate into the loss of the economic power of the US on the global stage.
We need to change our attitude, our visibility with regards to how we are being percieved be the rest of the world:
OBL had a plan to make the world see us as the Big Bad Guy, and strangely enough his plan seems to be working . . .
[ 01-02-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
THere have been numerous things which lead me to see this lately, here are some:
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/02/business/businessspecial/02TUBE.html"; target="_blank">US TV SHOWS losing potency abroad (reg required)</a>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/international/europe/31FRAN.html"; target="_blank">They Choke On Coke but Savor Mecca Cola (reg required)</a>
And then a book that summs up what I fear will eventually be the case: THE END OF THE AMERICAN ERA
U.S. Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the 21st Century
By Charles A. Kupchan
Which states that the continued Isolationist and unilateralist attitude of the US will merely drive a wedge into our relations to all other countries. We forget that competition is the norm and the once powerfull countries who's noses we constantly rub in the shiit of our arrogant monomania will eventually, with glee, eclipse our economic powerr and, eventually, because of loss of economic hegemony, our military might.
We see even our long standing relationship to the country that we saved and lost many men for, a country that we stand to risk 37,000 soldiers for their benefit, we see even that relationship eroding because of the manner in which we are "going it alone" or, doing it the way that we want.
Our stand on the Kyoto accords
our stand on Iraq
and our general insistence that we are the most powerfull and "best" . . . all of these are very quickliy eroding the place of the US in the favor of the international scene.
and what I fear that many do not understand is that the loss of that 'favor' WILL translate into the loss of the economic power of the US on the global stage.
We need to change our attitude, our visibility with regards to how we are being percieved be the rest of the world:
OBL had a plan to make the world see us as the Big Bad Guy, and strangely enough his plan seems to be working . . .
[ 01-02-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
Comments
If I think in my most conservative mode then I think that we need to start thinking about competitive edge . . . which would mean that we would still need to change our approach
It would be more competative for us to portray an image that is one which the rest of the world can appreciate not something that they can easily catagorize in terms of their latent knee-jerk hatred of the US.
For one thing, our industrial base, that base which made us a powerfull country after WW2, is no longer centered in the US. Our reliance upon foriegn labor and exports and our dependance on our new found "Service economy" do not gaurantee our continued strength< we can't force the world to purchase our goods . . . (though, that's exactly what we have done through the IMF and World Bank coercion in the past four decades...another grievance the rest of the world rightly has against us now)
Just look at how fast UK sank from the Empire upon which the sun always shone to out of work steel workers in Manchester etc . . . it can happen and all the momentum for it to do so is in place and held fast by our pugnacious attitude
Seems the world attitude lately has become, "What have you done for me lately?" Maybe because this is how humans on a lesser scale interact.
<strong>I have noticed something lately, the unilateralist attitude of the US...</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's a good thing everybody's added this buzzword to their vocabulary. Imagine if people had to actually think about our foreign policy instead.
That's why Volkswagen has been selling well in Israel since the 1960s, and Peugeot is doing quite well there now, certainly better than Chevrolet.
I suppose it's reversed in the U.A.E.
That US-made TV productions may lose market share to non-US productions has little to do with politics, and more with the actual TV market.
It would seem more local TV industries are learning to compete successfully with US products, something UK TV companies have been doing for quite some time.
What may have worked in the 70s and 80s might not be working in the 2000s, so we may be seeing a resurgence of the local programme providers.
Between 1950 and 1970, Detroit had mostly lost interst in the export market, it kept making huge steel monsters which only made sense on the US interstates, in made-for-auto suburbs, and wherever petroleum was cheap, counting on the circumstances, and US buyers' tastes to remian the same forever. So the Big Three's loss was WV's and Toyota's gain.
But then, back in the 80s, Hondas, TVs, VCRs, and CD players made by Japanese companies, led many to believe Nippon would own the 90s?
Should the American TV industry adapt to changing tastes and demands, it would do just fine.
Or else, your kids will be watching reruns of Navarro, Inspektor Derrick, Ha-Bourganim or Banjara.
As for Mecca-Cola, it might be lucky enough to do as well as Soviet Jeans, or not.
Now, aside Israeli military having to use M16s instead of Galils, I don't know of many cases where consumers have been coerced to buy products of US companies.
Let's see:
?Damn you furriner, buy this PowerMac Cube or I'll fry your sorry ass!?
?
I think not.
<strong>I want to make it clear that I am not posting this concern as a partisan quibble from a liberal.
.
.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you?ve pretty much already answered your complaint. Also, I hope you?re not advocating for the French model of doing business. Cause only the French can be French. If we all followed suit in their ways, then we all might as well start wearing them Hijabs and the like, cause there?d be nothing left to keep fighting for.
Look at who?s making these complaints re the US. You?ll find some very distinguishing features. But I know you are aware of these features already, and therefore I will not go into them. There?s a common agenda these people share. This agenda is propagated and subsidized by people who for strategic reasons America still officially designates as ?allies?, but do not be fooled by this temporary designation. (Though, I don?t think you are, and neither are most Americans). There?s a grand unholy alliance at work here. No doubt there will be some leftist attention seekers who will march along for the cause d?etre, but know where they received these whispers from; be aware who are the intellectual puppet masters guiding this grand conspiracy along. Don?t think that these people are only interested in sponsoring Mosques and Madrasas.
pfflam, maybe because of your French Catholic(?) background you share a certain subconscious affinity or even sympathy to these people, but I think you have sufficiently evolved intellectually to understand that their vision of the future is a black one indeed. You only need look at the sorry condition of the population where these servants of Satan still hold sway to understand what a malignancy their ideology represents.
Don?t be fooled by their siren call for equality and wealth distribution. For them it is only a self-serving and false vehicle to power and domination. It will serve to impoverish the people it claims to help, as history has shown time and again. The American model is the most equitable system yet devised for these principles to self-material, based on real merit, and not some false entitlement. And I wouldn?t worry too much about the decline of the American Empire. As long as you?re capable of attracting talent to produce products that people want to buy, you?ll always find a market for these products. Isn?t interesting that even Bin Laden was wearing a Timex watch.
[edit: Corrected for grammar and the like]
[ 01-02-2003: Message edited by: zMench ]
[ 01-04-2003: Message edited by: zMench ]</p>
<strong>That US-made TV productions may lose market share to non-US productions has little to do with politics, and more with the actual TV market.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Or because people aquired sense of quality.
Now who is going to be the first to call me a high ass cultural euro snob?
<strong>
Or because people aquired sense of quality.
Now who is going to be the first to call me a high ass cultural euro snob?
Now, zMench, I have no idea what you're talking about?!?!?! . . . who are "they" in Satan's army?!
<strong>
Now, zMench, I have no idea what you're talking about?!?!?! . . . who are "they" in Satan's army?!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Read it again. It's in there.
<strong>
Or because people aquired sense of quality.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If they did, they would turn off the TV.
The examples of popular non-US TV I gave earlier are hardly ones of grand art.
I'm hardly a connoisseur of television, yet it seems to me most productions are in very poor taste, with a few outstanding works here and there, whether they come from studios in Hollywood or in Bry-sur-Marne.
For years, US studios were nonetheless able to churn out productions in 35mm film, often with stereo sound, often cheaper than competing productions in 16mm and/or video (often a bulky studio camera which wouldn't move much, later some erratically moving Betacam).
The global TV market has been changing more rapidly these recent years, the multiplication of digital channels comes to more and more countries which until very recently had a few off-the-air channels to choose from, and more production houses may have figured out how to make competitively priced programming people actually like to watch.
More people aslo buy those gigantic screen TVs with high-fidelity audio capability, so more production houses may be aware that mono Super16 or Betacam might not be enough.
My perception may be flawed, but much of recent US-made TV dramas seem rife with static scenes about a bunch of guys in appartment settings trying to display some wit; now imagine that, but dubbed in French or German, got the picture?
Perhaps they should have stuck to car chases in exotic locations.
[ 01-02-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
The article belongs on the op ed page at best. It would be better off in the trash can.
pfflam: [quote]I want to make it clear that I am not posting this concern as a partisan quibble from a liberal. <hr></blockquote>
Fine. But your fascination with blaming Bush for literally evey problem we have is quite clear. Now you are essentially predicting the downfall of the US Economy because of his foreign policy. That's ridiculous.
jimmac:
[quote] Well the fact that we have a president that's so delusional he thinks ( and this is a quote from CNN this morning ) " The economy's still pretty darn strong " doesn't help. As far as the rest of the world goes it might as well not exist. Other countries won't stand for that attitude for long. <hr></blockquote>
The economy is fairly strong overall. The market isn't great. Unemployment is relatively low (though not compared to the late 90's. Growth is in the 3% range...not bad, historically. He's right.
SPJ:
[quote]Not to mention US abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol and gung-ho foreign policy in Iraq. <hr></blockquote>
I see the broken record has been put on again.
[ 01-02-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
Not flaming here, but do you really believe the premise of this thread? The US is anything but isolated or becoming isolated. US culture is speading throughout the world, from TV to music to clothing to capitalism. You can't link to something showing they're watching less Simpsons in Berlin, for example, then somehow extrapolate that into the US losing worldwide influence.
[ 01-02-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
The economy is not in good shape in any way, shape, or form. Just look around. I've never heard of all the major airlines contemplating going bankrupt! Jobs can't be found out there. Look at the figures from retailers from Christmas! Geez, you'd have to blind ( or delusional ) not to see it.
Also I believe this will be with us for at least another year. Longer if we start a war with someone.
From Outsider : " Isn't it troubling that the loyalty of an ally now revolves around how equitable the relationship is monitarily? "
This is what I've been trying to get through to you guys for awhile now. The world can't function the way it used to in say the 1940's. We need them = they need us.
There are many more people in the world now and the whole economic picture is based on the world not just the U.S. Further more we have it exceptionally good here compared to other places in the world. We can't afford ( no pun intended ) to ignore other countries economic situations anymore.
It may be a bad thing to trade principles for money but most of the world is poor or broke. How to feed the mouths of your citizens has become paramount.
Bad times like we are having here just serve to underscore that.
I hate to remind you but it's like Clinton said : " It's the economy stupid. "
I am aware that these examples are small, almost silly . . in fact they are silly . . .as far as television is concerned . . . and also what I am talking about is not the 'demise' of American power in one administrations time but a continual decline in the perception of the US from 'relatively happy about us' to downrightt boycotting anything American in a matter of a number of years.
Many of you conservatives yell out about anti-Americanism . . . well, I'm saying the same thing now and you can't see past your knee-jerk reactions to me as a poster.
I'm talking about that perception of us having a real and lasting impact on our might economically.
This perception may be being fostered by specific elements but nonetheless its growing radically and quickly since 911.
much more than just buildings and victims came down when the towers fell: a perception of America as a stable and benign (or relatively not-benign) super-power collapsed into a new picture of a vulnerable spoiled child. (something about the Victim effect that BRussell talked about in another thread is at play . . . and maybe that's what I'm really talking about!)
Unilateralism may seem like a buzzword to those that could not see any reason to even think half-twice about the push for war with Iraq . . . but nonetheless it has come about as a useful word because it describes a real phenomena.
This perception is real, South Koreans were, until recently, almost fanatically pro-American. A shift in global perspective has made us, the victim of a deadly terrorist attack, into the causus primus (mock Latin) of all that's bad in the world but especially our own victimhood: and the way we are handling things is not helping any at all.
[ 01-02-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
<strong>SDW,
The economy is not in good shape in any way, shape, or form.
.
.
Also I believe this will be with us for at least another year. Longer if we start a war with someone.
.
.
It may be a bad thing to trade principles for money but most of the world is poor or broke. How to feed the mouths of your citizens has become paramount.
.
.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I find it that interesting that you try to use a short-term cyclical condition (and rather dubious at that, as 3% annual growth for a developed economy like the US economy is not too shabby at all) to try and insinuate a systemic condition in which countries are too poor to buy US made product.
The US economy was always about value added product. And yes, if a particular population is too lazy or too stupid to move their economy from dependence on the export of raw commodities to that of exporting value added goods where intellectual capital invested is key in determining value of the product, then their future will indeed be a rather bleak one. But then they have only themselves to blame, don?t they?
<strong>
This perception may be being fostered by specific elements but nonetheless its growing radically and quickly since 911.
.
.
Unilateralism may seem like a buzzword to those that could not see any reason to even think half-twice about the push for war with Iraq . . . but nonetheless it has come about as a useful word because it describes a real phenomena.
.
.
This perception is real, South Koreans were, until recently, almost fanatically pro-American.
.
.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don?t know if this is true or not about S. Korea.. I know next to nil on that part of the world.
But if true, I think it will not be a bad exercise to call the S. Koreans on this. Pack up and leave. Let China and Japan deal with the Koreas. And if they (S. Korea) start crying for help, I?d say to them: "Well, this aircraft carrier costs so and so, this fighter plane costs so and, this tank costs so and so, this munition cost so and so, this military intelligence costs so and so".. Get my drift? Maybe that way they?ll appreciate you more.
btw, And I?d do the same with Europe.
[ 01-02-2003: Message edited by: zMench ]</p>
1) Israel have to pay for all its hardware and all the money that comes from US.
2) US have to pay for their responsibility of global waming.
3) US (and EU for that matter) have to pay compentation for the life ruined in sweatshop in third world countries producing products for our market. Ruined by unhealthy working conditions and compensated as if it were workers from our own country (=$$$)
4) The agricultural industry have to compensate for the life lost by their propaganda for monocultural farming in third world countries.
5) etc.
<strong>
I find it that interesting that you try to use a short-term cyclical condition (and rather dubious at that, as 3% annual growth for a developed economy like the US economy is not too shabby at all) to try and insinuate a systemic condition in which countries are too poor to buy US made product.
The US economy was always about value added product. And yes, if a particular population is too lazy or too stupid to move their economy from dependence on the export of raw commodities to that of exporting value added goods where intellectual capital invested is key in determining value of the product, then their future will indeed be a rather bleak one. But then they have only themselves to blame, don?t they?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, economic conditions are cyclical. But, it has been proven that a government can get us out of this quicker. I mean it's not like we're stuck with what fate throws us. We do have free will. But, nothing the president has done has had any positive effect on this condition.
About U.S. products being about value being added to a product I suggest you think for example about some of the cars produced in the late 70's early 80's. Remember the K car? Why do you think our dominance of industry began to slide? I don't agree with this nowadays but it left some people with a lasting impression of : You have to buy Japanese. American cars are junk!
About the economy of other counties:
It is insulting for you to suggest that some of these poor countries that are locked into poverty are too lazy to find their way out. That kind of thinking is what's wrong here.