This book came as a suprise ot me. He is arguing against the idea that china will be dominant and saying that the US will stay and develop as a much greater power.
However i see him make the same argument that Schiff argued against (Chine needs the US or else there are no consumers etc).
Anyone read it? what do you guys think?
He sounds like an idiot.
Schiff has some crazy decoupling theories… he thinks that China would be better off if they didn’t trade with us… Of course, this isn’t true cause in every voluntary trade, both people gain.
Unless there is fraud. The US government debasing their currency, is an act of fraud.
Schiff is correct. The Chinese should stop trading with the US, because the US is only able to buy if the Chinese people indirectly subsidize that consumption. In other words, while people are partying like two thousandaires, it is the migrant Chinese industrial worker footing the bill.
Schiff is too generous to call it what it is. 21st century colonialism.
Nonsense. This has nothing to do with fraud. The US debases the yuan how exactly?
I glanced at this book in the library and put it down after reading the table of contents. Doesn’t he also predict that Europe will go to war at a specific date?
The simple fact that he thinks America is somehow going to rebound while in a trillion dollar trade deficit is enough to not buy this Nostradamus-like soothsaying idiocy.
Exactly.
I think he’s spot-on about Japan eventually getting a navy & leveraging for a bigger role in Asia, though. His point about the US not wanting to win any of these small wars, to essentially prevent a major power in the Middle East to emerge & keep them fighting amongst themselves, was also pretty keen.
I agree that he might be just overtly optimistic about the US’ survival, though. HOWEVER, if he didn’t say what form the US would continue forth to gain more power; I could imagine it continuing on by becoming a full fledged fascist police state (i.e. martial law the norm), but not beyond 2030 (certainly not long enough to reach 2100). If it did, then America would be the one having the “second crash” mid-century, not necessarily just Russia.
Regardless, it would run out of money, much as the US technically has already.
This book seems mostly harmless, non-fiction fiction honestly (I see more threat from military novels spreading romantic propaganda for the “greater good”, which, despite the author’s own bias in a political stance, seems to keep the analysis in the book mostly from an exploratory standpoint, not necessarily a cheerleading and/or propaganda standpoint).
I bet as much as he get’s wrong or over-estimates, there’s a few bits of realistic possibilities. Then again, I’m going from articles & reviews about the book, I haven’t actually read it yet. I’ll see if I can pick this up from my used book store hangout, this weekend.
The one thing these Pax Americana guys don’t address, is how the off budget entitlement shortfalls will be resolved. The US is insolvent, but it will be completely broke in 20 or 30 years.
Unless they can resolve how economic growth continues, while squandering resources at war, and taxing to support the entitlement state…
It doesn’t matter if the US government and system is moral or not. If it has a manifest destiny or not. Physical reality will catch it and pull it to the ground.
I think the US will still be a significant power for the later 21st century, but that in terms of economics, I think Schiff nailed it dead on; serve us on toast (to steal a phrase from Steel Magnolias).
Perhaps, but I do not underestimate the ability of a mass of people under the state to deny reality & embrace everything through social filters (i.e. Nazi Germany), thus rationalizing the eventually end-game of a country with diminishing economic power: the full-on embrace of the political means (i.e. coercive means).
I mean really, state’s already do both, but in different degrees that encourages rationalization in political discourse.
I predict that either the US will fade-away into irrelevance, or will go out with fascistic bang when outher counrties defend themselves against a State power hungry because it is going completly broke. It would be nice if I was wrong on both predictions, though.
Schiff, who by the way, is a personal hero of mine, also thinks that the “trade deficit” is problematic. I wish Robert Murphy would sit him down and tell him it’s just an accounting curiosity.
Nitro, I agree and because I am not American, I don’t feel particularly concerned or passionate about what happens to America.
I see the US the way I think Ron Paul sees it. When the state gets too big, it will have to liquidate debt. The only way it can do it is to destroy the currency. When the currency is done, so is the empire. The military industrial complex will move on to the next carcass for feeding.
He doesn’t. He said that a deficit under current circumstances is problematic, and in the end it was Murphy that agreed with him.
Interview with Schiff by Tim Swanson:
Article by Bob Murphy admitting he was wrong about the trade deficit
The Chinese people are forced to save so that the U.S can artificially lengthen its structure of production with a 4% savings rate. The Chinese would be much better off without the United States, the Chinese people at least. There are major international imbalances which will be corrected.
You’re wrong. A current account deficit which exceeds around 3% is unsustainable for the currency; in 2006 the U.S current account deficit was 7.6% of GDP. The USD would have been hyper-inflated at least twice by now if it weren’t for vehicle currency status.
Thank you all. I stand corrected. Someone should alert Russ Roberts.
That chart Murphy included is terrifying.