Robert Amsterdam

The finance minister of Germany, Peer Steinbrück, perhaps offered the clearest celebratory estimations of the economic difficulties being suffered on Wall Street, as he triumphantly announced that "the USA will lose its superpower status in the global financial system" and that "The world will never be the same as it was before the crisis."

This line of commentary from Germany was shortly preceded by similar gleeful speeches by the Russians, who for once got the chance to enjoy a much anticipated opportunity to do some finger wagging over excessive state intervention by Washington - the irony of which merits no further comment. It's become very fashionable in many European capitals to pin the blame for the crisis on the incompetence of U.S. oversight and the poor homeowners who defaulted on their mortgages (Gordon Brown has gotten in on this), but Vladimir Putin seemed to take it to the next level when he said that "Everything happening now in the economic and financial sphere began in the United States. This is not the irresponsibility of specific individuals but the irresponsibility of the system which claims leadership."

In short, the U.S. financial crisis is seen by many as being symbolic of something much larger than a regulatory economic issue or even straight politics - it is in their eyes the fundamental and long awaited proof that the global financial system is broken, that the era of American-led post-war capitalism has come to an end, and that the United States will soon no longer have any relevance.

Not only is this schadenfreude over America's perceived demise crass and opportunistic, it is also loaded with some deeply flawed assumptions aimed at legitimizing political authoritarianism. The "American Century," in my opinion, is not quite over yet.

Having been born in New York, raised in Canada, and now living and working for several years now in the United Kingdom, it's difficult for me to recall another time at which the United States were so deeply unpopular in so many different places, or another moment in which so many influential and respectable people were so willing to consign her fate to the dustbin of history.

It's not at all difficult to understand their motivation. The catastrophically unwise policies pursued by the administration of George W. Bush knows few other parallels, involving everything from senseless unilateral war, constitutional manipulation, the institution of torture, and extraordinary damage caused to international rule of law and soft power. The securitisation (not financial) of the United States under Bush involved the invocation of unitary executive and Schmitterian emergency powers that could only be compared to Russia, Pakistan, or Mexico.

It's only natural that some people would like to see these officials get their due comeuppance. However that doesn't mean that the thesis holds any water.

I believe strongly in the ability of this generation to rebound from the current crisis, repair damage, and once again put themselves into a position of leadership in global economic and diplomatic affairs, just as those in earlier generations were able to do. I join many others in my belief that overall the fundamentals of the U.S. markets are solid and that with proper adjustments to build a transparent, clear, and non-burdensome regulatory regime, Wall Street will again become a city on the hill for other countries to follow. There are few other nations in this world that boast a similar mixture of size, innovation, talent, energy, resources, industry, military might, demographics, openness, dynamicism, and equality of opportunity. Yes, a multi-polar world is developing and should not be resisted, but an essential component of functioning multipolarity is a successful United States.

This is not going to be the crisis that puts an end to financial architecture of global capitalism, most importantly because there is no competing model to take its place.

We have to recognize that there is a domestic political use for leaders like Steinbrück and Putin to lash out in blame at the United States, and call for its removal from the world's stage. But at the end of the day, both Russia and Germany (and Venezuela and China, for that matter) are deeply invested in the mutual economic success of Wall Street and their own market.

Steinbrück is in very big trouble these days as the European Union is once again finding its lack of unity to be practically paralyzing. According to a report by Reuters: "Germany's leading financial dailies all criticised Steinbrueck's crisis management in prominent articles on Tuesday, with Handelsblatt's chief editor penning a front-page editorial calling his public appearances 'psychological poison'.

'Steinbrueck needs to watch out that his rhetorical crosses don't result in own-goals,' Bernd Ziesemer wrote."

The Russians are also beginning to change their tune, after seeing the RTS have its worst day of performance in history, falling 19.1% and smashing through the 1,000 mark to 866 - this sharp drop comes even after repeated attempted bailouts. President Dmitry Medvedev issued his government's first-ever podcast, calling for coordinated international action to solve the financial crisis - which is a far cry from Vladimir Putin's haughty finger pointing (which was back when oil was still above $100 a barrel and before Deripaska started losing the farm).

We shouldn't expect the Kremlin to openly recognize that capital flight is more affected by the war in Georgia and seizures of assets (from Yukos and Mikhail Khodorkovsky, for example) than by the economic policy of the United States, but this is a positive step in the right direction. Russia's brand of authoritarian capitalism doesn't work without high growth rates, controlled inflation, and when their fair weather friends in the business sector are happy campers (which has not been the case lately).

As for the Europeans, I agree with this Economist piece which argues that for all the complaining, this is more rhetorical bark than any actionable bite:

A common thread can nonetheless be detected in European responses to America’s troubles. It goes as follows. We always knew that unbridled free markets were a mistake, yet we were derided for saying this; now we are all paying the price for your excesses. In the face of popular consternation at capitalist decadence, the activist state is back in fashion—and we Europeans are taking credit for it. (...)

Most Europeans want to hear reassuring noises about the state taking matters in hand and curbing capitalist excess. But they also know that Europe’s traditional high-tax, state-driven economic model had hit the buffers in terms of creating jobs and fostering growth. Some Americans may fret that European-style socialism has arrived on Wall Street. But the mainstream left is unpopular in almost all European countries; the Social Democrats in Germany are scoring record lows in the opinion polls; and the last time the French picked a real Socialist to lead their country was 20 years ago.

Then again, let's not assume that this celebration of American financial ills doesn't have its very own subscribers back at home. Francis Fukuyama has an interesting piece in Newsweek about the damage done to America's brand of capitalism, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich is making a series of speeches declaring the bailout package as a move toward "casino socialism."

It seems that the only point of consensus is that there is a lack of optimism for the future of the U.S. financial system, and a great series of challenges facing this important democracy during an election. We can call the crisis many things, but boring is not one of them.