Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Apr 29, 2011 9:20:42 GMT -5
Just attended an economy seminar. Learned that real inflation last year was actually 6.2%; that by 2020 it is likely that national debt servicing will be 24% of federal revenue; that the dollar index over the last 10 years has dropped 37% due to our printing money; that gas prices' overall trend makes today's gas prices just about "where they should be."
That's it. We're boned. Just, boned.
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Apr 29, 2011 11:24:07 GMT -5
The US has been in a downward spiral since the late 70s-early 80s. The Vietnam War was the sympton everyone ignored in the rewriting of US history.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Apr 29, 2011 11:31:04 GMT -5
Downward spiral's one thing.
Right now I feel like I'm flying off a 150-foot platform on the end of a 160-foot bungee cord.
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Apr 29, 2011 13:22:36 GMT -5
Downward spiral's one thing. Right now I feel like I'm flying off a 150-foot platform on the end of a 160-foot bungee cord. You'll simply have to get used to being an ordinary nation among many ordinary nations. The hype and myth of exceptionalism is quickly losing it's appeal. Propaganda can only go so far. After that comes the disappointment when it becomaes apparent that it really was propaganda.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Apr 29, 2011 14:14:38 GMT -5
It's worse even than that, Oskar.
Just to give one example, the amount of interest required to service our debt is 6% of current federal revenue. In 9 years, there is good reason to think that it will be 24%. NINE YEARS. And that doesn't even include the impact should America's credit rating be downgraded.
I don't care if we're "one nation among nations." In fact, I'm looking forward to it. I'd just rather be England or Canada, and not Greece or Argentina.
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on Apr 29, 2011 16:30:40 GMT -5
It's worse even than that, Oskar. Just to give one example, the amount of interest required to service our debt is 6% of current federal revenue. In 9 years, there is good reason to think that it will be 24%. NINE YEARS. And that doesn't even include the impact should America's credit rating be downgraded. I don't care if we're "one nation among nations." In fact, I'm looking forward to it. I'd just rather be England or Canada, and not Greece or Argentina. I actually think this is a good thing. US lawmakers would never of their own accord slash military spending to support their burgeoning social welfare bill. But their debt holders will sure force them to cut back on their militarism to pay back the debt. The end result will be a USA far less inclined to throw its weight around and bomb people, and a safer world. I wonder if the USA might consider giving up territory for debt relief?
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Apr 30, 2011 6:58:20 GMT -5
The military budget, large though it may be, is only one of what I call "the big three," and not even the largest. It is 20% of our federal budget; 23% for medicare and 20% for social security make up the other two. I'm glad you want to cut defense and have the US stop throwing its weight around, I desire that too; but there are better ways to do it than forcing it in a way that as a matter of mathematics it must come at the same time as draconian cuts to aid for the poor and the helpless.
As for giving up territory voluntarily in exchange for debt relief... I think it's about as likely as finding any other case of that occurring at any time in world history. Besides, I don't think the US could do it even if it wanted to, unless the territory is land that no one really wants anyway. Anything of any value whatsoever will have been built up and be tied down in a dense thicket of thousands or even millions of owners and owners of owners both foreign and domestic. Anything substantial enough to make a good bite in the US debt would have major repercussions in the financial markets and therefore the economies of the world as all the world's investors tried to figure out what the exchange would mean to their bottom lines. It's simply not practical.
|
|
|
Post by patchoulli on Apr 30, 2011 9:23:21 GMT -5
Maybe we could just privatize territories like we are everything else in the US.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Apr 30, 2011 10:56:23 GMT -5
Well the US federal government does own millions of square miles of land, a lot of it locked up in national parks. I suppose they could sell those to energy companies for a good one-time reduction in the national debt.
FYI, I'm not trying to be snide or sarcastic with you... If there is any undercurrent here, it is simply to point out that there are no good options.
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Apr 30, 2011 13:52:09 GMT -5
You need politicians who have the vision and backbone to both raise taxes and reduce spending while maintaining a viable social safety net. Looking at the current crop you're in deep shyte. So are we.
|
|
|
Post by patchoulli on Apr 30, 2011 14:08:55 GMT -5
Actually, I was being sarcastic. Selling off much of ones holdings is not a good idea unless it is the last resort and even then it would only help in the short run. Oskar is absolutely correct in that we need people to do what just about everyone knows needs doing. But that isn't the politically safe thing to do. Yes, the shyte is getting deeper.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Apr 30, 2011 15:06:47 GMT -5
I agree with both of you 110%.
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on Apr 30, 2011 17:16:54 GMT -5
I'm glad you want to cut defense and have the US stop throwing its weight around, I desire that too; but there are better ways to do it than forcing it in a way that as a matter of mathematics it must come at the same time as draconian cuts to aid for the poor and the helpless.
The thing is, I don't see any appetite in the USA to adopt those better ways of cutting military spending. Quite the opposite, if anything.
I'm talking here of the time where you no longer control your own fate. Your creditors may soon get to a position where they can dictate your policies to you (the USA, via institutions it controls, has been wont to do that to dependent nations for decades). Your major creditor is a rival military superpower. I can see them insisting on you scaling back military spending, even if you don't want to.
When I mentioned territorial exchange, I was thinking of pockets of territory around the world that the USA may not care about. Guantanamo, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, some of the Pacific Islands and military bases that you occupy, etc.
I was joking about Alaska, but it is an example where this sort of thing did occur in the past and did work. The Louisiana Purchase is another. It's how the USA originally expanded, so why would it be impossible for it to be done now?
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Apr 30, 2011 18:07:34 GMT -5
Neither one of those were considered terribly desirable at the time they were sold, were largely unexplored, and hadn't been built up yet.
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on Apr 30, 2011 18:12:25 GMT -5
And Hong Kong?
|
|
|
Post by patchoulli on Apr 30, 2011 18:13:44 GMT -5
I agree that selling off some of the holdings around the world would be a good start. And yes, closing just about all military bases around the world would be another good place to stop wasting our money (and it might keep us out of trouble - if we aren't so close to the "action" maybe our hawks won't be as tempted). I'm sure we'd never consider selling off anything close to the middle East since that's where the oil is. But we surely could get out of Germany. Glad you were joking about Alaska. I have not visited but do want to and feel it's one of our best purchases. Anyone I've ever known who has gone says it is unbelievably beautiful.
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on Apr 30, 2011 18:29:18 GMT -5
Sorry seems to have been a glitch here. I meant to say in my earlier post that Hong Kong was a more recent example of control of a developed territory being transferred from one country to another.
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Apr 30, 2011 18:46:49 GMT -5
I agree that selling off some of the holdings around the world would be a good start. And yes, closing just about all military bases around the world would be another good place to stop wasting our money (and it might keep us out of trouble - if we aren't so close to the "action" maybe our hawks won't be as tempted). I'm sure we'd never consider selling off anything close to the middle East since that's where the oil is. But we surely could get out of Germany. Glad you were joking about Alaska. I have not visited but do want to and feel it's one of our best purchases. Anyone I've ever known who has gone says it is unbelievably beautiful. We'd take it off your hands as long as y'all kept the Palin tribe.
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on Apr 30, 2011 20:48:05 GMT -5
We'd take it off your hands as long as y'all kept the Palin tribe. Oh, I don't know. There must be some Canadian law you can retrospectively charge her with. She'd look quite fetching in an orange suit.
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Apr 30, 2011 21:29:44 GMT -5
We'd take it off your hands as long as y'all kept the Palin tribe. Oh, I don't know. There must be some Canadian law you can retrospectively charge her with. She'd look quite fetching in an orange suit. Couldn't find any anti-bimbo laws. Say, maybe you guys could take them. I'd swap Newfoundland for Cuba, though.
|
|
|
Post by Peltigera on May 1, 2011 3:30:35 GMT -5
A slight bit of maths:
In 1880s, the UK was the richest country this world had ever seen. We had consolidated our hold over Africa, the riches of the Raj were firmly ours, our writ ran in the Middle East. The future looked rosy and what on Earth could possibly go wrong?
In the 1940s, we were on our knees, bankrupt, lost - or were losing - our Empire (Pax, we traded away the Raj in the 1940s to save our home economy), lost our manufacturing pre-eminence, lost our scientific lead and generally failed.
In the 1950s, the USA was the richest country the world had ever seen. It is now 60 years later . . .
Of course, the USA doesn't have to fail just because the UK did, but our decline shows how fast that decline can be - and there are startling similarities in the arrogance and ignorance in both situations.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on May 1, 2011 4:00:25 GMT -5
I agree there are a lot of lessons that can be learned in the decline of England, and probably other great empires, for the Untied States.
I wonder if it's as simple as this: As an empire grows, naturally it's not just growth, but HIGH growth, and it goes on for decades... the people come to expect that kind of growth as being natural. As growth plateaus, as it must, the people begin to find innovative ways to preserve the APPEARANCE of a high rate of growth, and they call it many things, but ultimately really it's just taking on debt to finance a lifestyle that has become beyond their means. THIS goes on for decades, until the people wake up and wonder what the hell happened.
|
|
|
Post by cattleman on May 1, 2011 5:50:42 GMT -5
Close Pax, but not correct!
Check out the winners and losers. Thats always the first thing to do.
An Empire declines when the elite forget that they need to support the empire... As a good friend of mine explained: They are the cream of society! Rich and thick!
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on May 1, 2011 6:33:30 GMT -5
They are the cream of society! Rich and thick! Love that line!
|
|
|
Post by MacBeth on May 1, 2011 7:37:44 GMT -5
I plan to use it
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on May 1, 2011 9:23:42 GMT -5
A slight bit of maths: In 1880s, the UK was the richest country this world had ever seen. We had consolidated our hold over Africa, the riches of the Raj were firmly ours, our writ ran in the Middle East. The future looked rosy and what on Earth could possibly go wrong? In the 1940s, we were on our knees, bankrupt, lost - or were losing - our Empire (Pax, we traded away the Raj in the 1940s to save our home economy), lost our manufacturing pre-eminence, lost our scientific lead and generally failed. In the 1950s, the USA was the richest country the world had ever seen. It is now 60 years later . . . Of course, the USA doesn't have to fail just because the UK did, but our decline shows how fast that decline can be - and there are startling similarities in the arrogance and ignorance in both situations. If the USian empire doesn't collapse that would be the exception to the rule. Empires are never sustainable. As those who are dominated come to resent the domination the costs to maintain the empire eventually exceed productivity. IMO, it is simply the Law of Diminishing Return at work.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on May 1, 2011 10:41:37 GMT -5
I don't have any statistics readily available, but it seems to me that empires are as likely to decline or die from internal decay as they are from uprisings of the dominated. For its part, I think it's clear that the US will decline for the former reason.
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on May 1, 2011 18:05:22 GMT -5
I don't have any statistics readily available, but it seems to me that empires are as likely to decline or die from internal decay as they are from uprisings of the dominated. For its part, I think it's clear that the US will decline for the former reason. I guess it depends how you look at it. The final demise of an empire is almost always due to overthrow by an external party, but this would have been preceded by a long decline. For example, while the Pax Romana was being enforced militarily across much of the known world, the citizens of Rome did not have access to a secure grain supply, and there were continual shortages on the home front. The overrreach of the Romans meant that their Empire was unsustainable; combined with a declining domestic economy, they were ripe for overthrow.
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on May 1, 2011 19:22:24 GMT -5
For example, while the Pax Romana was being enforced militarily across much of the known world
Indeed. They could not afford all that military enforcement without seriously depriving the citizenry.... = diminishing returns. Rome had it's own military-industrial complex bleeding the country dry.
|
|
|
Post by cattleman on May 2, 2011 5:54:31 GMT -5
They weren't overthrown from outside at all. They collapsed internally. And it wasn't the "citizenry" who were deprived that caused the problem, it was the hyper-elites who forgot that the necessity to keep the society solvent was the foundation of their own priviledge.... Sound familiar?
|
|