I came across this article.
I generally agree with the points made, and have raised some of them myself.
Anyone care to expand on this, or take the other side?
Care to outline your thesis here? It’s generally not considered good form in GD to tell people to go read something and then ask if they agree.
First of all, using the term banana republic is stupid. The United States remains the strongest economy and the most influential political system in the world, which are two features share by no banana republic ever.
Secondly, it is undeniably true that the US has its share of problems, and the article hits on a few of them that I think are quite concerning: infrastructure, income inequality, health care problems, and several others.
However, the prescription for fixing these things is by no means clear. Raising the minimum wage so that every American working full time makes $40,000 a year probably isn’t good economic policy, for example. As beneficial as unions have been, I think the idea of returning to 1950s levels of union membership just isn’t realistic at all, because a lot of people just don’t want to join a union regardless of the benefits.
So, my conclusion is that the article is mostly inflammatory crap with a core of nougaty goodness that’s actually true.
Well, as John says, I’m not going to read through a drive by link and figure out what the OP is wanting to discuss. However, to answer the question in the OP title:
No. A banana republic is basically a small nation, usually despotically run, that relies on one crop (such as bananas)…and, according to some dictionaries, is in the tropics. So, the US isn’t a small nation, we don’t rely on one crop, and we aren’t despotically run, and I don’t think even with continental plate tectonics that the mainland US is headed towards the tropics any time soon. Q.E.D. we aren’t a banana republic, nor are we headed towards any of those conditions at this time.
No, the U.S. does not resemble a banana republic.
The U.S. resembles a banana.
[rimshot]
Fair enough.
Although the title of the article, and this post is intentionally hyperbolic, the serious question underneath is: Other than militarily, in what sense is the US still a World Leader?
My contention is that this notion has entered the realm of propaganda. By what metric can the US still be seriously considered a world leader?
Well, what makes a nation a world leader?
Other than militarily? What else do you need?
Well, aside from militarily there is economically and culturally…and, of course, the de facto aspect that we still ARE a world leading hyperpower.
It’s still a leader in e.g. computer stuff like Apple, Microsoft, entertainment, and science e.g. NASA, NIF
Economic power. We may not be the largest nation economically anymore, but we are among the largest. We could also beat the shit out of just about any other nation on the planet with our army. So there’s two.
Which countries, if not the US, are “world leaders”? Is every country a banana republic?
You’ve got some serious logical fallacies going on here, even if we accept that the US is not a world leader. Banana Republic is the bottom of the heap. World leader is the top. Not being on the top is NOT the same as being on the bottom. (And get your mind out of the gutter! 
)
I find a lot of claims in that article highly suspect. In particular this passage:
Everything other than the Walmart part. And it’s not sourced.
As far as the US being a World Leader I think it is paramount to remember that our cultural dominance far exceeds our military dominance.
Or this:
Those companies set up in the U.S. to make furniture and vehicles to sell to the North American market. The Toyota Camry, for instance, is built in plants in Australia, Japan, China, India, Russia, Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand, and about twenty miles away from me in Georgetown, Kentucky. Having a factory in the market reduces the cost of distribution, and avoids taxes on imports.
It’s not at all like Indian or Chinese factories making goods for export to wealthier nations.
We were going to bomb you into submission, but we decided to send Kim Kardashian to your country instead.
Not only that, the first line says “The only things America is #1 in these days are the number of incarcerated citizens per capita and adult onset diabetes.”. Maybe the author doesn’t realize that incarcerated citizens and adult onset diabetes aren’t exports.
FTR, I didn’t read the article beyond that line.
This. When I’m at my girlfriend’s house, I often get to hear her, her mother, and her brother, who are very typically Bavarian, complain about how much of what’s on TV is localized from the USA, and how so much of culture is driven by the USA. And I think this is one valuable point worth pointing out. Regardless of how bad things are at home, what matters most when looking from the outside culturally is, well, what other people think of us. It doesn’t matter from an outsider’s perspective if we have horrible inequality, if the American Dream is dead on arrival, if class mobility just means “you go to room 102 for afternoon lessons and 101 for morning lessons”. As long as we’re perceived as such a major force, nobody will ever call us a “Banana Republic”. And at this point, it’s more a label than anything else.
Well, there are statements of fact which are completely untrue. I’ll just take one of them:
“while 400 individuals own more than one-half of the nation’s wealth”
Total net worth of Forbes 400: $2 trillion
Total net worth of US: $118 trillion