Sam: You seem to believe that progressive policies invariably result in slower growth. Not so.
Norway, Italy, Austria and Finland all grew faster than the US during both post-war eras. Ok, Norway’s performance may have had a lot to due with nonsustainable resource extraction (oil). Not so for the other economies.
Imperialistic
The policy of extending a nation’s authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
I suspect that Canada’s lower exchange rate has more to do with a somewhat higher inflation rate than with a currency that is weak by PPP criteria. (More to the point, I suspect we both agree that a “strong currency policy” can be inappropriate in certain contexts - I have the third world in mind.)
Japan and Italy have higher debt ratios (although Canada’s is still too high).
Notwithstanding Italy’s declining currency (nominal terms, before the Euro), higher inflation, and awful debt/GDP ratios, it managed to have higher per capita GDP growth than the US or Canada during both post-war periods. So, I take issue with your causal model of national decline.
One point that i think is missed here, is that economic power is not held by governments, its held by corporations. It provides wealth to the nation as long as the government dances to the corporations tunes. How many workers have been layed off, while the company builds factories in the developing world, because the costs are cheaper.
I think the big question is. "Who is going to threaten Americas position as the worlds no1. Probably China, if so, how far will the US allow its influence to decline before it will take any action to stop it.
rogue