Quote from pentothal:
why the US would have the "highest probability"? because they don't realise that they have taken all the necessary steps in that direction. And you just need an "event" to precipate the situation with no return. Also I was referring to developed countries so I would leave China out of this and I don't need to be reminded of the political situation over there. (Or in Singapore, which is not a democracy).
Well, your statement "highest probability" infers a comparison to the political situation in other countries. Even if you leave China out, the potential for some version of a new authoritarian state (fascist, socialist etc) is much higher in Europe than in the US.
Re, just needing an "event" what does that statement mean? We only need an event such as a meteor hitting earth for the human race to go extinct. Any hypothetical event can be theorized, the question is probabilities, odds and likelihood of various scenarios unfolding.
Quote from pentothal:
Also, a fascist state means the merger of the public and private sector in what is called "corporativism". I am sure you see a lot of that going on. And again, the difference between Europe and USA is that it is the first time it happens in the USA and there is no (little?) understanding of how the process works and what the risks are.
I think you meant corporatism, and there are fair arguments that President Obama is a corporatist or at least in thrall to corporatists, but this is still a far cry from America being a fascist state. Think Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet etcetera.
The fact that it has not yet happened in the USA does not mean the USA is at higher risk for it happening... if anything the reverse logic applies, given that it has already happened in Europe on multiple occasions the dynamics and attitudes are there for it to happen again. Political coups and institutional regime changes tend to happen in times of great upheaval and economic turmoil. Guess who is experiencing great upheaval and economic turmoil right now, to the point that capital and talent are fleeing from periphery countries to northern ones? Europe.
Quote from pentothal:
You rightly point out the risk facing Spain, Italy or Greece, but you also are aware of the immediate reaction of the press and of people in general to the various statements of politicians. People participation to the democracy process in Europe is higher that in the US (that is a fact, consider % of people voting at election). Protests and demonstrations are another way to partecipate to the process, it would be superficial to dismiss that.
The only protest/reaction we see in the USA (and on this we are subject of media propaganda, so we may well miss something over here) is the Occupy Wall Street movement which is extremely limited in terms of what they are trying to achieve and also has (for what I can see/read) very little coordination, organisation etc.
Participation in the democratic process in a time of turmoil is part of the reason why Europe is at greater risk. As the situation goes into a downward spiral, with a toxic mix of austerity measures and lack of "all in" commitment from the more fiscally stable northern countreis, the odds of great-depression-like conditions in the southern countries become a virtual lock. And in such conditions, angry voters become putty in the hands of demagogues, who then move forward on the strength of what is at first a sanctioned democratic process, before concentrating power illegally or extra-democratically. Chavez in Venezuela for instance.
Re, Occupy Wall Street, the laughable nature of America's protests and their utter lack of impact is further evidence of America's stability, not a tendency toward political dislocation and chaos. Again this is common sense: Where are you seeing rubber bullets, tear gas, and fire bombing in the streets? Spain and Greece, perhaps soon Italy. US protests thus far are basically bored college kids.
Quote from pentothal:
I agree that an economic boom is the best way to move ahead in terms of reducing political risk but the deficit and total debt/gdp situation in the USA will prevent that. The state needs more money every day and it is not prepared to shrink, this seems obvious to me and to any observer. The republican party would just cut spending in some sectors (maybe) but would not touch the major spending source, ie the defense/security sector .
Your logic does not follow at all here. If the world sees another technology oriented boom - biotech, clean energy, health care related or otherwise - then this boom will be funded by venture capital money and pension fund money. There is hundreds of billions to trillions in investment capital out there, much of it tasked with delivering 7 to 8% real returns in a zero interest rate low return world - what this means is that a knowledge driven boom will have no trouble getting all the funding it wants once the wheel starts turning. Not only would the state not interfere with such a boom once the flywheel starts turning, various states would actually be likely to help by providing incentives and credits to attract jobs and industry in the new boom areas to improve their tax base.
Quote from pentothal:
Also remember that China is the biggest foreign holder of US bonds. They didn't buy the bonds to clip the coupon, they did it for political reasons and to have another weapon to use in a possible (economical) confrontation.
No, China loaded up on US treasury bonds as a function of Beijing's most important mandate: Fostering conditions of full employment (or as close to full employment as possible) so as to absorb workers migrating from the fields to the cities while avoiding civil unrest. China's treasury bond accumulation came about via the practice of selling America "stuff" in huge volumes in the form of a vendor-finance relationship, then recycling the accumulated dollars back into bonds.
China's UST holdings are a pretty weak "weapon," though, given that China would blow itself up in any serious attempt to use the weapon. China and the United States are so mutually interdependent in finance and trade terms, neither could truly unleash economic war on the other without doing drastic harm to itself. If Beijing were to threaten America economically, and America were to initiate severe trade sanctions in retaliation, China's export sector employment would collapse, leading to civil unrest outbreak and a collapse of the ruling party. It is possible that the US and China wind up in a devastating trade war, but if this does happen events would unfold in the manner of a nuclear war with no winners - it would not be a calculated first mover advantage for either side to initiate.
