Both sides emerge as losers from the battle that tarnished 'Brand America' Of course, many on Wall Street claim there was less than a 50/50 chance that America would have breached its borrowing limit, and only the very slimmest flicker of a possibility of a US default. It's the same with America's Cold War stand-off with Cuba and the Soviet Union - the odds that the world really was on the brink of nuclear disaster are debatable. Some historians claim there was a one in five chance that one or other side would have hit the button. Others put the chances closer to one in 1,000. Judging by the markets this week, most investors put the odds of America choosing the financial nuclear option at around the latter figure. The Dow Jones and the S&P 500 dropped by half a percentage point there, rose by a couple of percentage points here, but there was nothing of the rout one might expect when the world's largest economy is inches from the precipice. Whilst politicians could be blamed for much of the artificial crisis, they could not be faulted for trying to ram the message home. As the clock ticked down to midnight on Wednesday, Obama repeatedly cautioned America there were "no magic bullets" to prevent a default if the country bust through its $16.7 trillion (£10.3 trillion) debt ceiling. His doomsday tone was echoed around the globe, with IMF chief Christine Lagarde warning that default would be nothing short of "catastrophic." And yet, in the markets, little more than a flicker. We saw more trading volatility over the summer around fears that the US Treasury would stop pumping extra money into the economy, than over the prospect of global financial meltdown. If the Republicans were relying on the markets to heap pressure on the White House - well, their hopes were dashed. This episode suggests that the markets have decoupled themselves from a lot of the posturing on Capitol Hill. As a negotiating tool, Wall Street's reaction has lost its potency. The fact that America was sleepwalking to a cliff edge does not mean that the cliff edge was unreal, however. Or that it will not present a threat when the Democrats and the Republicans stage their next wrestling match close to that precipice, most likely in February. Similarly, the fact that the US sidestepped the doomsday scenario just now does not mean it has escaped from this shameful episode with its reputation intact. Sir Martin Sorrell put it best, when he said that "Brand America" had been tarnished. The ratings agency, Fitch, underscored his point, with a warning that it could strip America of its prized AAA rating, even if it averted a default. The game of chicken in Washington cast doubt "over the full faith and credit of the US" regardless. Prof Rogoff is right that Obama needed to stand firm in order to reassert his authority as president, not to mention the authority of America's political system. But the game of brinkmanship in which he engaged has had a leaching effect on his country's authority worldwide. As the billionaire investor Warren Buffett pointed out, the US has spent 237 years building a reputation for "proper fiscal behaviour" that has established the dollar as "the reserve currency of the world." It has also helped establish America's supremacy as a military power, a self-appointed policeman of the world. But the embarrassing game of chicken that has dominated the last three weeks has left a damaging stain on its record. The Democrats may well have won their battle against the Republicans on this occasion. But both parties - indeed all of America - have lost an important battle in their ongoing war to remain the most powerful nation in the world. Several things happen to British men when they move to New York. For starters, they find their accent works wonders. No, not just when it comes to snagging a date, but in the boardroom as well. A number of my English expat friends claim they are taken more seriously in America. Their accents lend them a new air of gravitas and intelligence. "It's like I was instantly promoted several levels," says one. But it is not that way for everyone. There is a clear gender divide here. Men may feel they go up a notch in terms of seniority in America, but too many of the women I know here find they suffer the reverse effect. Serious players, who have sat in the boardrooms of Britain's biggest banks, or pulled in millions for golden circle law firms, find they are treated like dolly birds in New York. One expat was aghast when her boss advised that female employees should not be allowed to speak to the press because it would be "worse if they screwed up" than it would be for a man. Another (male, American) friend told me blithely that he wanted to recruit a female receptionist because women's voices were more "soothing." I think my sharp-tongued response quickly put that belief to the test. This week, Angela Ahrendts announced she will leave Burberry to become Apple's retail chief, whittling the number of female FTSE 100 chief executives down to just two. I hope she is successful. A company of Apple's size should have at least one woman on its board. Some commentators speculate that Ahrendts is being groomed as its future chief executive, but I'll only believe it when I see it. As the number three at a technology company whose star appears to be waning, I fear that her stateside move comes with a demotion as well.