10 signs US is losing its influence

[alpha180sx]

10 Signs The U.S. Is Losing Its Influence In The Western Hemisphere
Posted Sep 27, 2010 03:40pm EDT by Gus Lubin in Recession, Emerging Markets

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/10-signs-the-us-is-losing-its-influence-in-the-western-hemisphere-535456.html?tickers=eem,ewz,fxi,eeb,jjm,^dji,xle


Provided by the Business Insider:

We won't be the alpha dog in the western hemisphere forever.

Even if the U.S. hadn't crashed into a financial crisis, there are demographic, material, and political forces that have been spreading power around the Americas for decades.

Brazil is first among the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) -- four economies that are supposed to overtake the six largest Western economies by 2032.

Mexico is first among the MAVINS (Mexico, Australia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Nigeria, and South Africa) -- six economies we expect to blow away expectations and become leading powers in their regions relatively soon.

Canada and Venezuela are oil powers of the distant future.

Peru and Chile are sitting on a fortune of metals and minerals.

All these countries are cranking up, while America faces plenty of fiscal and demographic problems at home.

Here are Signs the U.S. Is Losing Its Influence In Its Own Backyard:

Our most powerful regional ally--Brazil--refuses to follow our orders on Iran

Hillary Clinton went to Brazil to beg support for sanctions against Iran and came away empty handed. Now the UN is counting on Brazil, which is friendly with America and Iran, to lead nuclear diplomacy.

The World's Richest Man is now a Mexican, not an American.

For the first time in 16 years, the World's Richest Man is not an American. Carlos Slim, worth $54 billion, is the first Latin American to hold that title and one of many emerging market billionaires to eclipse the U.S.

Three years after a US financial crisis, Latin America is again growing rapidly. The U.S.? Not so much...

Compare this to what happened during the Great Depression. Latin America was devastated when U.S. investment dried up and the export market soured in the 30s. A League of Nations report said Chile, Peru, and Bolivia suffered the world's worst depression.

Today is quite different. Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico have led a buoyant recovery from the global recession, according to Reuters. The regional economy is expected by the UN to grow 4.3 percent in 2010. If the American consumer remains weak, Latin American exports will move elsewhere.

Chile produces 300% more copper than America--the former world leader in copper production

America used to lead the world in copper production. We produced 49% of the world's copper in 1929, according to this article from the archives. Today we produced 1.2 million tonnes yearly, compared to 5.4 million tonnes in Chile.

Brazil now produces over four times as much iron ore as the U.S.. We used to lead that industry, too.

America once led the world in iron mining. In 1892 we discovered the world's largest mine at the Great Lakes Mesabi Range. It was a wellspring for America's industrial might and the foundation of the rust belt.

Now we claim reserves at 2,100 mt. Seven countries claim higher reserves, including Brazil at 8,900 mt. We produce only 54 mt yearly, while Brazil produces 250 mt.

Canada and Venezuela will pass the U.S. in oil production in the next decade

America produces around 9 million barrels of oil a day. Venezuela and Canada each produce around 3 million. But America's reserves are 21 billion barrels and may last less than a decade. Our oil-rich neighbors claim 99 billion bbl and 178 billion bbl, respectively, and will keep producing oil into the distant future.

Now Brazil exports over twice as much beef as we do

America used to lead the world in beef production. Although we still do, America exports only 800,000 mt of beef per year. Brazil exports 2,200,000 mt. Here's some ironic excerpts from a 1911 NYT article: "American-Canadian syndicate to have world's largest beef plant in Brazil... The chilled beef industry has never been tried before in Brazil and has only recently gotten under way in Argentina."

Brazil is now a critical partner for Russia, India, and China

The acronym coined by Goldman Sachs to describe the four key emerging powers has taken on a life of its own. Brazil, Russia, India, and China have held several summits and even discussed making a supranational currency -- that would pull the rug out from the U.S. dollar.

What's important here is that global emerging powers have good relations and are inclined to work together. For instance, China just signed major contracts to build factories and a high-speed rail in Brazil.

Brazil, Canada, and Mexico all invest a greater share of GDP in clean energy

A Pew survey found that Brazil invests 0.37% of its economy in clean energy. Canada invests 0.25% and Mexico invests 0.14%. America is eleventh in the world at 0.13%.

Hugo Chavez is still in power

The CIA has a notorious history of interventions in Latin America, supposedly targeting Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, Fidel Castro, Manuel Noriega, Rios Montt, Che Guevara, and many others. But they haven't stopped Hugo Chavez from railing against the United States for years. Clearly America has adopted a more passive regional strategy.

[turbo2nr]

interesting read..

what does this say??

invest in foreign market..

[HyperTek]

Thats good, Id love to see Mexico come up and improve.

[aznpoopy]

flattening of the world means valleys are raised. great for developing nations. it also means mountains are going to be leveled before manufacturing and other industries return to the US. i would guess at least 2 generations of american lower and middle classes have been sacrificed on the altar of globalization. in other words, either skill up or move abroad; it's what the rest of the world has been doing for decades. now we get to do it too.

[Gnnr]

Ehh, this article is not only bringing nothing new to the table its full of weak arguments and assumptions. Yeah, we loss some power, but I'm tired of this doomsday scenario the media keeps trying to paint.

Originally Posted by alpha180sx

We won't be the alpha dog in the western hemisphere forever.

If we are talking strictly economic power and influence, maybe.

Even if the U.S. hadn't crashed into a financial crisis, there are demographic, material, and political forces that have been spreading power around the Americas for decades.

Brazil is first among the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) -- four economies that are supposed to overtake the six largest Western economies by 2032.

Yeah, welcome to 2006.

Mexico is first among the MAVINS (Mexico, Australia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Nigeria, and South Africa) -- six economies we expect to blow away expectations and become leading powers in their regions relatively soon.

Mexico, ha. He can't be serious? I agree with South Africa, but the rest aren't anything surprising.

Canada and Venezuela are oil powers of the distant future.

I don't see it being more than what it is now.

Peru and Chile are sitting on a fortune of metals and minerals.

Ok, I don't seriously see the problem with the US no longer being top dog in the mining sectors. Those are old and antiquated industries and we have been pushing in other sectors (like Technology). I'm more worried that we aren't producing enough Engineers, Mathematicians, Scientists, etc. which should be our forte.

All these countries are cranking up, while America faces plenty of fiscal and demographic problems at home.

Here are Signs the U.S. Is Losing Its Influence In Its Own Backyard:

Our most powerful regional ally--Brazil--refuses to follow our orders on Iran

Hillary Clinton went to Brazil to beg support for sanctions against Iran and came away empty handed. Now the UN is counting on Brazil, which is friendly with America and Iran, to lead nuclear diplomacy.

I agree, Brazil is strong. Big thanks to China for bailing on us and finding a new mooch.

The World's Richest Man is now a Mexican, not an American.

For the first time in 16 years, the World's Richest Man is not an American. Carlos Slim, worth $54 billion, is the first Latin American to hold that title and one of many emerging market billionaires to eclipse the U.S.

Big whoop. The guy is worth $53.5 and Bill Gates is as #2 with $53.0 billion. The guy is also 70yrs old whereas Gates is 54.

Three years after a US financial crisis, Latin America is again growing rapidly. The U.S.? Not so much...

No shit, Latin American economies all contracted during the 80s and 90s (with the exception of Colombia, guess why). Eventually they where going to grow.

Today is quite different. Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico have led a buoyant recovery from the global recession, according to Reuters. The regional economy is expected by the UN to grow 4.3 percent in 2010. If the American consumer remains weak, Latin American exports will move elsewhere.

I already addressed Mexico and Brazil, but IMO Argentina was never able to fully recover from their economic meltdown that happened in the early 00s.

Chile produces 300% more copper than America--the former world leader in copper production

America used to lead the world in copper production. We produced 49% of the world's copper in 1929, according to this article from the archives. Today we produced 1.2 million tonnes yearly, compared to 5.4 million tonnes in Chile.

Brazil now produces over four times as much iron ore as the U.S.. We used to lead that industry, too.

America once led the world in iron mining. In 1892 we discovered the world's largest mine at the Great Lakes Mesabi Range. It was a wellspring for America's industrial might and the foundation of the rust belt.

Now we claim reserves at 2,100 mt. Seven countries claim higher reserves, including Brazil at 8,900 mt. We produce only 54 mt yearly, while Brazil produces 250 mt.

Again, why do we need to be top dog in this? We don't have to top in every industry.

Canada and Venezuela will pass the U.S. in oil production in the next decade

Maybe, that's only if we don't go through alternate drilling sites.

Brazil is now a critical partner for Russia, India, and China

The acronym coined by Goldman Sachs to describe the four key emerging powers has taken on a life of its own. Brazil, Russia, India, and China have held several summits and even discussed making a supranational currency -- that would pull the rug out from the U.S. dollar.

Ha, even the mighty Pound and Euro dropped like a rock. I found it amusing that Europe was criticizing the dollar not to long before their currencies tanked as if they where untouchable. I doubt that a new currency from those countries (especially considering how China loves to devalue their currency) will happen or even be of much threat.

What's important here is that global emerging powers have good relations and are inclined to work together. For instance, China just signed major contracts to build factories and a high-speed rail in Brazil.

Yeah, what can I say. China is in bed with Brazil now.

Brazil, Canada, and Mexico all invest a greater share of GDP in clean energy

A Pew survey found that Brazil invests 0.37% of its economy in clean energy. Canada invests 0.25% and Mexico invests 0.14%. America is eleventh in the world at 0.13%.

Ehh, that's gonna change anyways. The US is heading in that direction.

Hugo Chavez is still in power

The CIA has a notorious history of interventions in Latin America, supposedly targeting Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, Fidel Castro, Manuel Noriega, Rios Montt, Che Guevara, and many others. But they haven't stopped Hugo Chavez from railing against the United States for years. Clearly America has adopted a more passive regional strategy.

This, as a reason of concern, I find hilarious. Let me tell you why he's still in power, the US thinks he's a clown and don't take him serious. I highly recommend you watch this documentary if you want to know more about the US/Chavez relationship.

Amazon.com: Frontline: The Hugo Chavez Show: Will Lyman, Ofra Bikel: Movies & TV

[5pecialist]

This is not news. Between Clinton & Obama, we have given away the power this country once had for quite some time now. NAFTA was the setup & TARP was the home run.

[BustedS13]

Originally Posted by 5pecialist

This is not news. Between Clinton & Obama, we have given away the power this country once had for quite some time now. NAFTA was the setup & TARP was the home run.

but Bush did a great job, right? be more transparent, conservative

[5pecialist]

Originally Posted by BustedS13

but Bush did a great job, right? be more transparent, conservative

You're too young to remember, but yes he did. Our country was doing quite well due to his leadership.

[Gnnr]

Originally Posted by 5pecialist

This is not news. Between Clinton & Obama, we have given away the power this country once had for quite some time now. NAFTA was the setup & TARP was the home run.

lmao, so that 8 year gap had nothing to do with our current situation? Bush was on China's dick.

[ZilviaKid]

soon americans will be hoping the border into mexico and canada.

[ESmorz]

Coming to Canada.

To fuck all your women.

Get those flannels ready.

[pacotaco345]

Originally Posted by 5pecialist

You're too young to remember, but yes he did. Our country was doing quite well due to his leadership.

Lol I think he was talking about Bush 2 that couldn't make a public speech for crap, yes Bush 1 was a good president, yes Bush 2 wasn't as good as him, but Bush 2 atleast had the balls to take a stand.. unlike Clinton and Obama

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by ESmorz

Coming to Canada.

To fuck all your women.

Get those flannels ready.

hahahahahahahahahahahahah

sure come over, just make sure you get a job. don't fell like paying for your shit with my taxes, shit already high enough.

[Gnnr]

Originally Posted by pacotaco345

Lol I think he was talking about Bush 2 that couldn't make a public speech for crap, yes Bush 1 was a good president, yes Bush 2 wasn't as good as him, but Bush 2 atleast had the balls to take a stand.. unlike Clinton and Obama

lol, being stubborn and hard headed do not equate to having balls. He was just ignorant and a puppet of his administration.

[raz0rbladez909]

Originally Posted by Gnnr

lol, being stubborn and hard headed do not equate to having balls. He was just ignorant and a puppet of his administration.

They're all puppets one way or another, as long as they are republicans or democrats; I'm sure Obama is completely in his own mindset when it comes to everything I'm not trying to bash but, he made a speech about his religion the other day and he must have studdered and used the word umm so much it was like watching a first grader give his first presentation with an audience, I'm not saying Bush was any great speaker either lol

[aznpoopy]

um, yeah. it doesn't matter which party was in power or who was president. completely irrelevant. the seeds of this were sown before bush. before clinton. before reagan. hell they were in place when the US took over as leader of the world in 40s and 50s.

labor going abroad was inevitable. as standard of living rises, costs rise. with globalization, corporations now have access to global labor pools. on a macro level, any company that doesn't send labor abroad will be outcompeted. any hypothetical government protectionism at best delays the inevitable; it makes the protected corporations fucking weak, like small child.

[HalveBlue]

Originally Posted by aznpoopy

um, yeah. it doesn't matter which party was in power or who was president. completely irrelevant. the seeds of this were sown before bush. before clinton. before reagan. hell they were in place when the US took over as leader of the world in 40s and 50s.

labor going abroad was inevitable. as standard of living rises, costs rise. with globalization, corporations now have access to global labor pools. on a macro level, any company that doesn't send labor abroad will be outcompeted. any hypothetical government protectionism at best delays the inevitable; it makes the protected corporations fucking weak, like small child.

^^^Gets it.

Honestly, I've had the opportunity to travel a lot in the last few years and I have to admit the US is lagging behind in a lot of areas. I feel like this country is resting on its laurels and has subsequently has become complacent.

America has become myopic and it's come back to bite us in the ass.

The OP's article reminded me of a quotation that I read a while ago. It's attributed to a Scotsman by the name of Alexander Tytler, though there's some debate about whether he is actually the author. In any case, the treatise has become known as the Tytler Cycle:

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

* From bondage to spiritual faith;
* From spiritual faith to great courage;
* From courage to liberty;
* From liberty to abundance;
* From abundance to complacency;
* From complacency to apathy;
* From apathy to dependence;
* From dependence back into bondage.



Do I think the US has hit rock bottom? No.

The US is still the richest, most powerful country in the world.

But our dominance in declining relative to the rise of other nations.

Unfortunately, instead of accepting this as a matter of fact, and looking for viable solution to the problems facing our nation, a lot of people in this country prefer to put on blinders and pretend like all is well.

Ignorance is bliss, after all.

[axiomatik]

Originally Posted by alpha180sx

Brazil is first among the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) -- four economies that are supposed to overtake the six largest Western economies by 2032.

This isn't really 'evidence'. But yes, developing nations are gaining influence, and have been for 50 years or more.

Mexico is first among the MAVINS (Mexico, Australia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Nigeria, and South Africa) -- six economies we expect to blow away expectations and become leading powers in their regions relatively soon.

Again, not really 'evidence', merely a description.

Canada and Venezuela are oil powers of the distant future.

They are already oil powers. Canada is America's #1 oil supplier.

Peru and Chile are sitting on a fortune of metals and minerals.

Many countries can claim huge mineral wealth. Whether or not that mineral wealth results in economic development for the population is another issue. Historically, mineral wealth in poor countries tends to make the elite richer while the masses stay poor. Nigeria has tons of oil. It's not exactly an economic juggernaut.

Our most powerful regional ally--Brazil--refuses to follow our orders on Iran

Brazil has never been one to 'take orders' from the US. US-Brazil relations have always been somewhat cool.

Hillary Clinton went to Brazil to beg support for sanctions against Iran and came away empty handed. Now the UN is counting on Brazil, which is friendly with America and Iran, to lead nuclear diplomacy.

Brazil wants to be a diplomatic player. They and I think Turkey recently tried to negotiated a deal between Iran and the countries of the UN Security council. They got Iran to agree to a settlement proposed by the US a year earlier. However, because Iran had already enriched so much nuclear fuel in the meantime, the settlement was useless and turned out to be a bit of an embarrassment to Brazil and Turkey.

The World's Richest Man is now a Mexican, not an American.

He controls a telephone monopoly in the 11th most populous country in the world, of course he is rich. In the US, monopolies are forbidden.

Three years after a US financial crisis, Latin America is again growing rapidly. The U.S.? Not so much...

Compare this to what happened during the Great Depression. Latin America was devastated when U.S. investment dried up and the export market soured in the 30s. A League of Nations report said Chile, Peru, and Bolivia suffered the world's worst depression.

Today is quite different. Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico have led a buoyant recovery from the global recession, according to Reuters. The regional economy is expected by the UN to grow 4.3 percent in 2010. If the American consumer remains weak, Latin American exports will move elsewhere.

It's been less than 2 years since the actual crisis, and as developing countries, they should enjoy greater GDP growth than developed countries such as the US or western Europe. They also didn't have the bubble run-up before the recession that we have to work through.

Chile produces 300% more copper than America--the former world leader in copper production

Mining is an old, dirty, dangerous industry that releases tremendous pollution. How much do we really want here? I'd rather have the corporate headquarters in the US and mining operations elsewhere.

Canada and Venezuela will pass the U.S. in oil production in the next decade

It's called peak oil. US hit it around 1970 and domestic oil production has been declining ever since.

Now Brazil exports over twice as much beef as we do

That's because Americans consume so much beef. Compare domestic consumption of beef in the US and brazil, and you will find that we eat way more beef.

Brazil is now a critical partner for Russia, India, and China

Brazil has always been cozier with Russia than we'd like.

The acronym coined by Goldman Sachs to describe the four key emerging powers has taken on a life of its own. Brazil, Russia, India, and China have held several summits and even discussed making a supranational currency -- that would pull the rug out from the U.S. dollar.

The Euro hasn't yet, why would a BRIC currency?

What's important here is that global emerging powers have good relations and are inclined to work together. For instance, China just signed major contracts to build factories and a high-speed rail in Brazil.

China will sign a deal with any country if it means it can export stuff.

Brazil, Canada, and Mexico all invest a greater share of GDP in clean energy

A Pew survey found that Brazil invests 0.37% of its economy in clean energy. Canada invests 0.25% and Mexico invests 0.14%. America is eleventh in the world at 0.13%.

Brazil's is so high because most of the fuel they consume is ethanol (E85) instead of gasoline. Sugar cane grows easily in Brazil, and they use the sugar cane to make ethanol for E85. I'm willing to bet that 90% or more of the money they invest in 'clean energy' is in building ethanol plants.

Hugo Chavez is still in power

So what? Fidel Castro has been in power for 50 years. Should we assassinate Chavez? Have the CIA start a revolution? He is the democratically elected president of his country. It would be hypocritical (though certainly not unprecedented in US history) to oust a democratically elected leader.

The CIA has a notorious history of interventions in Latin America, supposedly targeting Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, Fidel Castro, Manuel Noriega, Rios Montt, Che Guevara, and many others. But they haven't stopped Hugo Chavez from railing against the United States for years. Clearly America has adopted a more passive regional strategy.

That's because we have realized that overthrowing governments might translate into short-term benefits, but long-term it produces resentment in the population that is getting bullied around. Look at Iran. We overthrew their government, installed a friendly leader (the Shah), and how did that turn out? The Iranians eventually revolted against the puppet government propped up by the US, installed their own, super-conservative, anti-american government, and now Iran the world's greatest rogue nuclear threat.

[aznpoopy]

Originally Posted by HalveBlue

The OP's article reminded me of a quotation that I read a while ago. It's attributed to a Scotsman by the name of Alexander Tytler, though there's some debate about whether he is actually the author. In any case, the treatise has become known as the Tytler Cycle:

[I] A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

that disagreement over authorship is dead-on, imo, because polybius beat him to it by about 2200 years or so; Tytler's cycle dealing with only the very last transition.

Anacyclosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Polybius' sequence of anacyclosis proceeds in the following order: 1. Monarchy, 2. Kingship, 3. Tyranny, 4. Aristocracy, 5. Oligarchy, 6. Democracy, and 7. Ochlocracy.

According to Polybius' elaboration of the theory, the state begins in a form of primitive monarchy. The state will emerge from monarchy under the leadership of an influential and wise king; this represents the emergence of "kingship". Political power will pass by hereditary succession to the children of the king, who will abuse their authority for their own gain; this represents the degeneration of kingship into "tyranny".

Some of the more influential and powerful men of the state will grow weary of the abuses of tyrants, and will overthrow them; this represents the ascendancy of "aristocracy" (as well as the end of the "rule by the one" and the beginning of the "rule by the few"). Just as the descendants of kings, however, political influence will pass to the descendants of the aristocrats, and these descendants will begin to abuse their power and influence, as the tyrants before them; this represents the decline of aristocracy and the beginning of "oligarchy".

As Polybius explains, the people will by this stage in the political evolution of the state decide to take political matters into their own hands. This point of the cycle sees the emergence of "democracy", as well as the beginning of "rule by the many". In the same way that the descendants of kings and aristocrats abused their political status, so too will the descendants of democrats. Accordingly, democracy degenerates into "ochlocracy", literally, "mob-rule".

During ochlocracy, according to Polybius, the people of the state will become corrupted, and will develop a sense of entitlement and will be conditioned to accept the pandering of demagogues. Eventually, the state will be engulfed in chaos, and the competing claims of demagogues will culminate in a single demagogue claiming absolute power, bringing the state full-circle back to monarchy.

of course, polybius wasn't using democracy in the same sense as Tytler, who is presumably thinking of representative democracy. anacyclosis was part of an argument as to why the roman republic was stable, since it encompassed kingship (consuls), aristocracy (senate) and democracy (public), just like our modern american republic. but as far as applicability (and sadly for rome - but hopefully not the US), it's same general theory nonetheless and it works well in the framework of the republic.

[ronmcdon]

Hey, I have no doubt we're losing influence too, but that's not such a great article.
Most of it is mere speculation, and it matters not whether or not we deal with raw materials.
It's just not our priority today.

Nobody gives a shit about Hugo Chavez.
Nothing wrong with a 'passive strategy'
If anything I wish the US would devote more resources in improving the economy, rather than instigating international bullshit.

Also the bias of the writer is clearly in favor of Brazil and anti-American.
Personally I have very little faith any the future of most Latin American countries.
Historically they've been notorious for economic and political instability
(whether or not you blame the US is another matter entirely).

I could seriously care less about Brazil.
Now India, Eastern Europe, Russia is almost guaranteed to do great.
China I don't have an optimistic outlook for.
Their government hasn't been so good for business lately.
Labor costs are soaring, and trade quotas from the US don't help either.

[Gnnr]

I think Hugo Chavez is shaking in his boots. It seems that his ALBA nation buddies are getting overthrown one by one. First Zelaya in Honduras now Correa in Ecuador.

Protesting police throw Ecuador into chaos - Yahoo! News

It was funny to see last year how Chavez was crying and stomping his feet at the US, upset that we didn't intervene in Honduras (the irony being he opposes US involvement in the region). Hopefully Evo Morales and Daniel Ortega are next to fall.

[Bubbles]

1 big ass sign you're still holding it down, everybody else get's compared to you.

[unlegendary]

i like girls from brazil

[ronmcdon]

^

been to Rio some 11 years ago, & it's nothing to write home about imo.
Wonderful city though.