This piece in Foreign Policy says yes. Those that agree like to point out that after World War II, Great Britain, glorious empire though it may have been, was extravagantly in debt; the U.S. was a net creditor to the world, and Britain's most important source of financing. When Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal in the 1950s, Britain wanted to fight back. But the U.S. made clear that its financial support was contingent on the UK's withdrawal from the canal. Britain had to choose between financial ruin and geopolitical power. And so the mantle of global leadership was passed from debtor to creditor.

Now, of course, the U.S. is leveraged to the hilt -- the national debt recently surpassed $11 trillion -- and the world's top creditor nation is China, which sits on about $2 trillion worth of reserves. According to the FP, the story of today's financial crisis has the U.S. "playing the role of Britain -- the exhausted debtor economy -- and China taking the place of the United States as the world's largest creditor."

I think such a stark comparison is wrong for a number of reasons, including the fact that the U.S. lets the dollar float freely, and so doesn't have to prop it up artificially like Britain did in the 1950s. Moreover, even though China has a large treasure chest, it's not in the same position today as the U.S. was in the 1950s. It doesn't have a well-developed domestic financial system, and it's still a very poor country, with most of its population living in rural poverty.

Tyler Cowen, the ur-econoblogger and George Mason University professor, goes so far as to say that "the United States is, relatively speaking, a countercyclical asset." In other words, when things are going really well, the U.S. loses ground on a relative basis -- witness the emerging-markets boom of 2002-2007, when even Vietnam saw a surge of investment, and the dollar hit record lows against the euro. But "the worse things go for the world as a whole, the more the United States gains in relative power and influence." There are three reasons for this:

1. Size. "In bad times, international cooperation tends to break down, which increases the relative influence of larger economic and political units."

2. Demographics. Japan and Europe are starting to shrink, and China is a demographic time bomb because of its one-child policy. Only the U.S. has a healthy profile in this area.

3. Political stability. France has had five constitutions since 1789, and China has suffered a Cultural Revolution, a Great Famine, a Communist takeover and more -- all in the last half-century. Russia is even worse. America has "one of the oldest and most durable nation-states."

Walter Russell Mead made a similar argument in The New Republic in February. Crises tend to reinforce Anglo-Saxon capitalism, in part, he says, because much of the rest of the world is only "half-heartedly capitalist," and a crisis in capitalism strengthens the political extremists and despots who wreck countries in the long run. Both pieces are worth your time.

Many Newsweek readers already know that our columnist Barton Biggs, the legendary Wall Street strategist and hedge funder, believes markets are set for a new bull run. Today, I took a first read of Barton's latest piece (watch out for that on the site later this week) in which he notes further signs of an economic thaw. The key point is that an economic indicator known as the Purchasing Managers Survey, or PMI, is on the up-tick globally. Historically, this has been the most prescient indicator of both the condition of the economy, and the performance of the stock markets. The bottom line: Biggs now believes there's very firm data to show that the world is pulling out of its economic nose dive.

It's funny, because you wouldn't know it from the mood of investors. Institutions and individuals alike are still fleeing the market in droves, after one of the worst performances in ten years. As always, herd mentality reigns. But as Barton asked me, "Whatever happened to buy low, sell high?"

Very interesting op-ed piece in the Financial Times today which questions the conventional wisdom that countries can spend their way to economic growth. The piece, by Minxin Pei and Ali Wyne, two researchers at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, looks in particular at China's struggles to increase consumer spending at home -- something that's crucial to rebalacing the global economy, as I have written frequently on this blog.

The authors speculate that perhaps it's not the fear of poverty (never far away for many people in China) or the emphasis on exports that stymies spending, but the fact that the Middle Kingdom is an autocracy. Looking at data across a number of countries, the researchers found that 71 percent of nations that have experienced a growth in consumer spending in recent years also became freer and more democratic.

There are two explanations: One, free nations tend to be safer, which makes consumers feel more secure and ready to part with their dosh. Second, developed, democratic nations also tend to have strong social safety-nets in the form of state medical care and education, which encourages people to pull money out from under the mattresses. All the more reason for the Obama administration to keep plugging ahead with health and education plans even as they try to bail out the banks.

This just in from Newsweek's Man in Brazil, Mac Margolis, stationed amongst one of the most robust middle classes of all the emerging economies. Given that, we wonder: could this be a red flag for what's to come elsewhere? --KP

The respected Brazilian polling firm Ibope and the publicity firm Nova S/B have just released a survey on the habits of Latin America's largest middle class, the 23 million or so Brazilians who have clawed their way from the ranks of the poor over the past decade to become the nation's majority class. The survey, conducted from September to November of last year, was full of promise, and showed that nearly three quarters of the 500 people surveyed had no plans to cut back their spending in light of the looming crisis.

Of course, if surveys are meant to hold a mirror up to society, this mirror was in need of a polish. The pollsters gave each interviewee around $45 a month to use as he or she pleased. Even as economic horizons blackened, 72 percent hit the High Street, using the ersatz stimulus checks to shop instead of pay down debts. It helped that none of the 500 people surveyed was unemployed at the time. Pollsters seemed to think the results could be interpreted generally, even though the rest of society wasn't getting an unearned bonus each month, and many were losing their jobs.

So what's really happening to the Brazilian middle class? It's shrinking. Since December, nearly one million jobs have been erased in Brazil as industrial output dropped 14 percent in the first quarter of this year. The vaunted Brazilian middle classes shrank from 54 percent of the population in December to 52 percent a month later. For a full picture of the wreckage, visit Latin American expert Alex Kazan's new blog.

The Brazilian unraveling is a cautionary tale for pundits and poll takers. Just a few months ago, talk was bright about the emerging global middle classes. And no wonder. Rising prosperity through the last decade had hoisted hundreds of millions out of the ditch of poverty and into the aisles of malls and supermarkets. The World Bank last year projected that middle incomers would double to 16 percent of world population by 2030, while the Brookings Institute spoke of a billion more people set to join the middle class by 2020, ready to buy gadgets, meat and drink, even private school education and health care. When the crisis passes, the incipient bourgeoisie may yet rise again. But for now, at least, Mammon will have to wait.

Happy Days Are Here Again?: Obama's still got it: Two-thirds of Americans approve of his job performance, according to a new New York Times poll. And though 70 percent of respondents said they were worried about layoffs affecting their families, the percentage of people who thought the country was on the right track jumped from 15 percent pre-inauguration to 39 percent today. That's the highest it's been since early 2005.

Prodigal Son: The son of ex-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is staying busy during a down economy trying to bring a Major League Soccer franchise to Portland, Oregon. He's committed $50 million of his father's fortune (which he earned in his pre-government role as CEO of Goldman Sachs), but he wants the city to pony up $65 million. He's finding it a tough sell, especially since Oregon, as we learned yesterday, is the saddest state in the nation.

Reverse Offshoring: The head of Sallie Mae, a U.S.-based student lending company, has said it will bring back to the U.S. 2,000 jobs that had previously been offshored to places like India, Mexico and the Philippines. 

Elections as Economic Stimulus: And you thought Obamamania was excessive -- Indonesian politicians are handing out loads of trinkets, baseball caps and food packages to win votes. The total could add one a percentage point boost to GDP this year. Compare that to the U.S., where last year's campaign expenditures reached 0.3 percent of GDP.

And Now For the Bad News: Economists Barry Eichengreen and Kevin H. O'Rourke say that while the recession in the U.S. is not yet as bad as the Great Depression, if you look at the global picture, the data look just as grim -- or worse. Globally, "the decline in industrial production in the last nine months has been at least as severe as in the nine months following the 1929 peak," they write. Andrew Leonard of Salon snarks that the most useful phrase of the last six months -- "the worst ___ since the Great Depression" -- may need to be replaced by "the worst ____ since the Dark Ages."