For the record, I am of the new developing/recently-developed/holy-crap-gottta-develop-haven’t-got-a-choice-have-we? societies. “Liberalization” has made me quite comfortable, thank you. But, I owe no allegiance to any European or American values. I don’t have to.

True, I find it nice to indulge in the consumerism that dmm alludes to. No offence. But can do without. Tough. But doable. Nice to have, though.

Should the U. S. of A. collapse. As I said, very sad. Markets take a hit. Propped governments fall. The debt equity parity ratio will embiggen the macro flux of the global economy thereby commodotizing the product spectrum which will reduce the mean median of the spatial spread of wealth that will increase the standardised deviation of the deviant quality of living. Blah blah blah. Now, is that good or bad? I don’t know. Hey! I am that epitome of the American dream, “the consummate consumer” and I don’t like it . Well educated Timberites will give you the specifics.

However, I find it not too wrong for a society that is hell bent on “My right to the inviolate rights of man” without so much as a how-do-you-do to the “Non negotiable duties to man”, to collapse. And in true American fashion, those who scream the former actually make Armstrong’s inadvertent grammatical miscommunication in reverse.

The way we always define “better off”—i.e. being able to live longer, healthier, happier lives. And yes, that means being able to purchase products that make our lives easier and more enjoyable. You might not consider a life with a car better than a life without a car, but there are hundreds of milions of people in China and India who would disagree.

If the U.S. economy just up and disappeared one day, leaving a vacuum in its wake, there is no question that many of the gains in living standards and wealth in most of Asia would be rolled back. Like it or not, the U.S. economy still provides much of the impetus for growth and production in the rest of the world.

Granted there would be countries where the passing would be hardly noticed, such as those deeply mired in poverty. But every person, in every developed country, from Europe to Asia would be made significantly worse off.

Who knows, maybe the rest of the world will have a great awakening and decide to live lives full of sustainable consumption and in harmony with the earth. I doubt it. Human nature is pretty simple. It is not just Americans who want “more, more, more.”

Yet, I still hold that whatever your definition may be, as long as it is not predicated on that “great American dream” and all that it entails, yes, those 5 billion people will be better off.

Sad? Yes. Relief? Too bloody right, yes. This has been going for too bloody long.

As we know, Bush’s fave guy on Social Security was one of the guys who advised Pinochet on privatizing social security there. It is one of the odder forms of class warfare that conservative/fascist governments usually start out as big privatizers, struggling against the communist threat, but somewhere down the business cycle – when the rich get into a panic – they turn into the most radical nationalizers. Let’s see how far the Bush people go.

Right, because the other 5 billion would be so much better off with a collapsed U.S. economy…

After all, the whole world is bending over backwards to make sure the US does not fail, ” ‘cos it just is too big to fail. ”

I say, collapse.

That’s the sound of 5 billion people heaving a sigh of sad relief.

Again?

Wow.

Here in the States the current preoccupation concerns the jeremiads of Jeremiah Wright.

Stay tuned for the next exciting episode…

if you’re footing the bill, you might as well get something out of it, right?