Even if it was more by accident than design, the 1929 meltdown had the effect of transferring massive amounts of wealth (i.e. REAL stuff) from the hands of the many into the pockets of the few. The few haven't looked back since. Indeed we are forced to live in their paradigm to this day.

Maybe it's time for that shark to take another lunge at the carcass of humanity.

Trouble is, there's the little matter of the US nuclear stockpile. They didn't have that back in the roarin' 20's. And the United States of America is the tribe that lost it's head. It's a caution.

- and who needs enemies when you have far-seeing political cronies like John Howard?

people who write about history do not necessarily understand how it is made. i believe human society is an organic creature driven by basic forces, the composite desires of people. intellect is present as a tool, but is not the pre-eminent factor in personal or social decision making. we want what we want and we use intellect to get it, but might well simply use force when that seems effective.

this author assumes the primacy of intellect because that is where he makes his living. he is wrong to imagine intellect is equally important to others. even if it were, what an intellectual wants is not necessarily rational. consequently, talking about missed opportunities is wrong. the 'fog of war' is really the fog of life: birth, struggle, death, for individuals and for societies.

What the Chinese say is "may you live in interesting times" and it is meant as a curse. We sure live in interesting times now but I am not sure who is responsible, but the USA hubris is a good candidate.

The demands on manufacturing during WWII and post war recovery was a major factor in USA recovery from the Depression but the War against Terror is only a negative.

Great article Demos,

It is not the intellect that drives mankind in everyday life on this planet it is the need to survive. The biological need to survive, food on the table, roof over the head.
The intellect is but a servant or a tool to attain this. Mankind will do what ever it takes to survive. This means that the biological instinct to survive is driving the show and will override the intellect that says its wrong to kill, when wars are used to gain resources.

This is why mankind comes up with all these religious and political reasons (excuses) for going to war because the notion that they are controlled by basic intincts when it comes to survival at a high level (not in poverty) , goes against their belief that they are controlled by intellect and reason. That is too frightening for them to face.
Especially the idea that other men are also driven by this and that they will not be able to reason or peacetalk their way out of being attacked if the other lot deem it necessary to better or enhance their survival chances by using agression.

I too think the West is on the eve of destruction if they dont come down out of the intellectual stratosphere and see that the river of life will carry them on to greater destiny if they will just understand that it runs along at the biological level. If they do not begin to understand this they will be swept away by that same river by stronger biological forces.

You can swim with the current or against it that is your only choice. The river will flow on regardless.

The underlying plates of global power are building pressure, but not moving. The Anglo-saxon alliances have yet to be really tested. Some techtonic plates are already shifting - Cold war rhetoric is returning to Russia as US sponsored misile sites go up in former eastern Bloc countries, the zealous new members of NATO. India is being coaxed into the US alliance.

But the slow moving giant tectonic plate is China. China is trying to define itself in the world as the emerging superpower. In the last decade, it has been presenting itself to African heads of state as the champion of Africa, but in reality is just into the same resource exploitation game and propping up some of the world's worst tyrants such as Robert Mugabe and Omar Basier with their country's resources for arms deals.

The early tremors of a major earthquake are coming from within China itself. The huge disparity of incomes, rampant corruption, environmental degradation, injustice are all explosive areas as China consistently grows more powerful with double digit growth year after year. The communist party is trying to find solutions to address an increasingly vocal population with asperations for a quality of life beyond luxury goods. How China resolves these internal pressures for change will define world politics and alliances for the next millenium.

Quick response: Good points about China.

My thoughts on the matter are as follows. Whilst America has certainly set itself on a difficult path, I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that it will fall from grace. I say this because I think all of the other would-be contenders have their own serious problems.

1. Europe looks tired. It looks like it alternates between resting on its laurels and worrying about not becoming Americanised, all the while becoming less and less relevant in a global context, and also having a major identity crisis. For example, they can't agree on a constitution. Then there's population, namely plummeting birth rates, ageing, and in some countries, being outbred by Muslims/non-Europeans to the point of becoming minorities in their own countries by mid-century.

2. Pick any of America's internal problems and disparities, and multiply them by one hundred for Russia. Throw in serious population decline.

3. Any large developing nations (China, India, Brazil) face enormous looming environmental crises, as well as massive internal disparities.

4. The Islamic world is a complete backwater in every way.

Who does this really leave as a suitable and definite candidate for the No. 1 position?

Dr Cumes' thesis could be based on human greed, somewhat entailing the old 19th century discussion conerning Darwin's Survival of the Fittest intermingled with the Old Testament gift of the Promised Land - including the Holistic right to destroy the unbelievers.

Part of the above did create mixed feelings among Christians, depending whether one believed in the justice and compassion of the Nazarene Jesus, or the far more pragmatic teachings of the much later Christian teachers.

It is thus no surprise that Darwin's Survival of the Fittest concept really enthused the 19th century political and business elite, giving justification for the scandals of the free-market of the time, as well as the Western elimination of coloured peoples, including our Australian blacks.

It also gave justification for Darwinian socialism, promoted by Darwin's former friend Herbert Spencer against Darwin's wishes, and later praised by Hitler's Nazis, many of our own right-wingers leaning unconsciously towards it today.

Indeed, the thrust of business and politics was so strong towards the end of the 19th century that littel notice was taken of an ageing Darwin who still persisted that his Survival of the Fittest concept had nothing to do with human progress, but only to the physical ability of animals to adapt to nature's tribulations.

The British political philosopher Maynard Keynes also gave warning about human progress after he attended the Treaty of Versailles, predicting the rise of Hitler and the begiinings of WW2, as his economic ideas had also lifted the West out of the Great Depression.

His mixed economy also served us so well before we brought in a remodelled 1920s free market in the 1970s, letting the profits again be lapped up by the corporates, the growing empires fed by shares from a money hungry public.

We shut down with word from the former editor of the New York Times, Howell Raines - who says that after six failed years of war, it is about time we gave historical knowledge another chance rather than peristent missile diplomacy.

Shorbe, yes, we do so much need America, but as Dr Cumes intimated, why is Americana letting Texaco George Dubya and his oily deputy offsider, combined with all those untrusty neo-cons, many of them former Israelies, make such a Godammed mess of international relations.

My God, and made a hundred times worse now with the top neo-con, Paul Wolfowitz, former architect of the illegal attack on Iraq, then made head of the World Bank, found cuddling up with an Islamic sweetie. And would you believe, Georgie Boy is out to forgive him.

Reckon its about time most of you right-wingers who by your intellect give reminder of Hitler's stormtroopers, should get real and take good notice of Dr Cumes reasoning.

And please to remember along with Dr Cumes, we repeat that we don't hate America, but only the intellectual
imitates trying to run the global show.

As unipolar reps they're nothing short of a disgrace.

one other thing about China. They also have tens of thousands of men who will never get married because women are scarce since the one child policy and the drowning of girl babies. This strikes me as an excellent recruiting ground for armies, all these men without a sense of purpose or the stablising influence of wives and children.

"[In The U.S.] About 37 million people live in poverty. About 40 million have no health insurance."

What a joke...
http://alangrey.blogspot.com/2006/05/poverty-in-america.html

So what does the current poverty level really mean in America? Well according to the Heritage report it means that

* Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
* Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
* Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

"While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience hunger, meaning a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 13 percent of poor families and 2.6 percent of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. In most cases, their hunger is short-term. Eighty-nine percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat."

Yeah...poverty. Right. This post is an insult to the real poor in third world countries.

Take your socialistic nonsense to a Clinton function.

Sharkfin...it isn't tens of thousands of men in china who won't be able to find a wife due to a shortage of women...it is more like 100 million men.

Demos, sadly with your reasoning you will have us back to the Roman Empire, and which also means that you believe that the now crackpot US regime should be still calling the global tune.

Well, I guess if the Bush regime does resort to the Red Button, which will be the only way that the US will quieten Iran, and with the help of fiery little atomic Israel of course - guess we will be facing the crude animalistic survival of the fittest, and which looks like right up your alley.

Just remember that the Cold War petered out by both sides doing some commonsense thinking, please take a lesson.

"Reckon its about time most of you right-wingers who by your intellect give reminder of Hitler's stormtroopers, should get real and take good notice of Dr Cumes reasoning."

bushbred: Thanks for that. All I was pointing out was that America's fall from grace is far from certain, and that someone else's rise to replace it is also far from certain. I wasn't actually cheering for any side.

I'm actually opposed to the neo-cons, including Paul Wolfowitz, but don't let that stop you from lumping me in with them.

Also, the Cold War didn't peter out. The Cold War came to an end because the Iron Curtain's economic theories finally showed themselves to be impossible and impractical, and they lost the Cold War. By definition, if the U.S. (and West in general) hadn't won the Cold War, we wouldn't be in the situation (for better or worse) that we're in today.

Shorbe, please accept my apologies, from me it was just a generalisation, to the many who seem to regard me as just an old fruitcake. With such feelings it is better to stick to the old military term, no names no pack drill.

Also the term Petered Out is an old bush term which means that both sides eventually believe it is time to give it away. Though they were pretty well done for for by the US, the end of the Cold War was really no normal surrender by the Soviets. It is so interesting that they were allowed to keep part of their nuclear weaponry stockpile.

Guess from the US at the time it was a case of trust, but one wonders whether America under GW Bush and Co would have agreed to the same arrangements.

bushbred: Interesting hypothetical. However, I don't think the U.S. had much choice in allowing the Soviet nuclear stockpile to be carried over to Russia as it's not like they could have walked in and confiscated them. If they'd tried, it would have been on for young and old.