No, that wasn't my argument. My argument is that if the system was upheld by random factors, it would have collapsed long ago. It stands for reasons, and as long as those reasons stand the system is upheld. I named what I believe to the the reasons.
Your wrote:
The major power guaranteeing global trade cannot succumb to debt problems without the compromise of the whole system that it is guaranteeing. It is inconceivable outside massive environmental damage that the system which has expanded continuously since the 1700s will collapse. WWI tanked the British and transferred the role over to the U.S,but the U.S. is in no similar position to be tanked and replaced by a similar rival with sophisticated financial systems, raw industrial power, and a powerful navy and general security power.
First of all, Britain didn't "hand over the role to the US" after WWI. The US dollar became the world's reserve currency after WWII following the Bretton Woods agreement. Second, your argument is that as long as there is no viable alternative to the US it will remain the guarantor of the world's reserve currency. This assumes there has to be a single reserve currency backed by a single national power. But what did ppl do before there was a reserve currency? Is it not possible for countries to trade in their own currencies, especially large trading partners? China, for example, has signed several agreements to conduct bilateral trade in renminbi, not dollars. Russia is beginning to do the same. And why can't a transnational body like the IMF assume the role? In fact, there has been talk of using the IMF's Special Depository Rights (SDRs) as the reserve currency. It would be backed by a basket of currencies including the dollar. Third, it isn't necessary for the country backing the reserve currency to have the strongest military. It
is necessary that the country have one of if not the strongest economies. This ensures there are large and sophisticated markets to finance trade and facilitate the flow of capital. A strong economy with low inflation also ensures the stability of the reserve currency. The military has nothing to do with any of these conditions, and is why the yen at one time was thought to be a candidate for reserve currency status. (See below for discussion about Japan.)
The role of depressions is overexaggerated by those suffering them. Because the world economy waxes and wanes does not mean that the relative position of the U.S. is fundamentally damaged relative to the other economies.
History is not a collection of isolated events but a sequence of events one leading to and producing the other. WWI produced the boom in the US in the 20s that lead to the Great Crash and Depression of the 30s. In Germany, WWI produced the hyperinflation of the 20s that lead to Hitler and Nazism in the 30s. Both the Depression and Nazism lead to WWII that produced the demise of the British Empire and the ascension to superpower status of the US. So depressions are not isolated events that touch only the countries or ppl that suffer them. Worldwide depressions touch everyone and changes history, including the country backing the reserve currency.
Britain lost its colonies because Japan took Singapore and showed once for all that the hold Britain had over them was mainly psychological.
Soldiers from all over the Commonwealth fought on behalf of the British in both WWI and WWII. Britain fought against Axis aggression and for the independence of occupied states. It was patently hypocritical for Britain to ask the Commonwealth states to fight for the independence of Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc, when they themselves maintained colonies in the middle east, Asia, and elsewhere. That hypocrisy and the weakened postwar British military and economy were the primary reasons for the loss of many colonies after WWII.
The whole point is that the US won't find itself in such a position. The U.S. is more powerful than Britain ever was relative to its rivals. The EU is finished as a military power; they've been a virtual protectorate since WWII.
You don't understand the scenario. Go back and reread what I wrote. The US enters a war that another power such as Europe or China manages to avoid. As a result, the US suffers significant military and economic losses while Europe or China escapes unscathed. This leaves Europe or China in a much stronger position vis a vis the US, just as WWII left the US in a much stronger position vis a vis Britain. At that point, Europe or China will have the wherewithal to assume the role of economic and military leadership of the world.
China is overhyped. They are surrounded by U.S. created protectorates or former protectorates like Japan, Taiwan (right on the Chinese coast, preventing them from projecting their navy abroad like the U.S. does), South Korea and others. Obama's fabled pivot to Asia; it didn't happen, but what was that about? It's about the beginning of pressure on China.
This is still in the erroneous pre-war context, but let me just say that Japan is not militarized and neither Taiwan nor S Korea have a nuclear arsenal. They are both dependent on the US for their protection. But it is that protection that is "overhyped". If China, for example, invaded Taiwan tomorrow, do you think the US would really risk a war with China? What did NATO do when Russia invaded Georgia and Ukraine?
In addition to this, if you look up the statistics on the amount of value added in Chinese factories, you'll find that it is very minimal. China is much hype and little substance; in practice they have been converted into a big factory for the assembly of cheap goods. It is far easier to do this than it is to develop research facilities and industries necessary for developing new and competitive military technology.
Show me the statistics. The Chinese are not just producing "cheap goods" anymore. They have steadily moved up the manufacturing value chain. Ever heard of Lenovo? Or Alibaba? Or Huawei?
Sure, the economy of the U.S. is propped up by artificial measures. This has been true since WWII at least. How else do you maintain such extraordinary wealth disparities, both domestically and in comparison with the world? But this doesn't mean that such artificial measures can't continue and even increase. Someday the U.S. will lose its position, but I find it hard to imagine that it will be in the foreseeable future.
A country doesn't have to adopt artificial measures to produce unequal results. Capitalism guarantees that by its very nature. And the easy monetary policy of the last fifteen years has actually helped narrow the gap with the rest of the world by financing our purchases of inexpensive goods from China and other developing countries.
Just think of it this way. The Japanese, a U.S. ally, did great up to a certain point. But then they ran out of things to copy in the West because technology peaked out. And their lack of R&D came back to bite them. The same thing will happen with China. The developer is tremendously advanced with respect to the imitator.
Really? So the Japanese didn't copy our MP3 players and smartphones? Or our personal computers? Or big screen TVs? And they don't have the internet? And haven't developed electric vehicles?
No. Japan peaked because they had a real estate bubble. When it popped, rather than forcing the sick banks to write-off bad debts the authorities dragged their feet and propped them up. Banks with bad debts can't perform their job of supplying credit, and because credit is the fuel of our modern capitalist economies, the Japanese economy languished.