How so?



How so?

I am not talking about hoarding money and never spending it. I'm just saying maintain a certain balance, and spend anything above that balance.

I would agree that hoarding and never spending is rather pointless. Unless it's for retirement, it makes no sense to keep money tied up for long periods of time.



Agreed, but I would say they are exceptional cases due to their sheer cost. Nobody wants to remain without a house until they retire.

In addition, buying a house is even more unique, since it involves buying land as well as the structure. Land always keeps some value, and it's not unusual for it to become more valuable, which can lead to a profit in the long run. Land doesn't wear out like most of the products we buy.

Prior to 1945 most people did buy their homes outright and without a mortgage. (Notice I said most not all).

Land fluctuates in value just like any other commodity; a significant portion of the increase in value (the last boom exempted) is primarily inflation value (about 20% of the total value increase). And the remaining 80% is demand value. Now over the last forty plus years demand for land has increased dramatically due to the availability of mortgages and the increase in population. However in areas that saw a decrease in population you also saw a corresponding decrease in values as well.

Case in point: Camden New Jersey, in the late 1960’s you could buy a three bedroom house on a modest plot of land for about $10,000. In 1980 the same home sold for $6,000 and in 1990 the same home cost $6,000 by 2004 the same home sold for $60,000 and now in 2008 that very same home is now less than $30,000.
I should note that Camden is one of the poorest cities in all of North America, its economic decline began in the late 1960’s and there has been no increase in demand in the city for housing in the last forty years. In fact the population of the city has declined. The surrounding areas however saw increases in value during some years (1889 for example of as much as 60% in one year).

So the statement of “land always holds some of its value” is not entirely correct, after accounting for inflation, property taxes ext, there are cases where you end up with a negative wealth gain from the ownership of real estate even if the dollar price of the land does not decrease. (the equivalnet of wearing out)

SpacePony: Thanks for the clarification.

If I'm reading the Wikipedia correctly, in 1945 the great depression was over, and the nation was recovering. So this is when our economy was doing pretty well.

So, in light of what you've said, it does appear that Carbon016 may be mistaken, and that we experienced this trend towards constant debt only recently. It's not intrinsically part of our economy by default, and our economy has done very well during times when people were saving instead of going into debt.

CobraA1. When I say "normal citizens", I mean people who do not invest in anything. Then there are the people who do invest.

Now, the problem today is that in the last 20 years, the normal american citizen has started spending all the money that they earn, and yes in many cases they go into a lot of debt. But debt is not the biggest problem here.

The biggest problem is that many investors today are investing their money based on how much their investment will gain in value. And how much their investments gain in value depends on how much the normal citizens spend.

Forget about numbers, it is irrelevant at this point. What is relevant is the concept of "Change or Trend". If suddenly all the citizens start saving most of their money, they are not going to keep buying, thus demand would lower, thus prices would lower, thus the Trend would change drastically. The investor would see this slowed growth and decided not to invest while the economy is changing so much and on a downward slope, because their investment would not gain as much value as before, or it might actually lose value, depending on the individual case.

This would create a shock in the stock market, it will cause many people to start panicking and many investors will take their money and save it until the citizens start spending again and they see a positive (for the investors) Trend. Which in turn will not happen if investors do not invest their money.

In summary, if normal citizens start saving a lot, then investors stop investing a lot, and the US economy collapse.

The US economy depends on its citizens spending a lot. Now Debt is another issue, and another story for another day.

This is entirely true, but only if you limit the scope of the change to single person:
If everyone else continues their current habits and I save, I can, as you say, achieve a higher cash flow.

But now consider the case that everyone starts saving. That means right now everyone spends less. But since everyone's income (including interest) comes from someone else spending, all incomes go down, since less money is being spent.

So now I see wages decreasing, and that gets me worried for the future, so I save more. But everyone sees the same thing, and everyone spends less. Then, again, everyone's income goes down. Then they spend less. And so on.

Now nobody is spending money, so factories shut down, business lay of workers, etc. And this, of course, makes everything worse.

And Boom! Economic crash.

I understand you logic but if I may point out an alternative scenario.

When people save they are spending less, however their income will go up as a result, not down. They will receive interest on the money saved.

Now a company borrows money to expand and make more efficient their operations, they can afford to do this because, with the amount of savings that is going, on interest rates are lower and better repayment options open up because lending institutions can afford to absorb more potential risk then they could otherwise due to the fact that they have actual cash reserves on hand to cover any potential losses.

This company now can make its widgets for less, so now they can pay a higher wage to employees to reduce training cost and lost productivity due to employee turnover, and also sell the product at a lower cost. Now the employee can enjoy a higher standard of living because they are deriving income from the interest from their savings and they are now making a better wage.

Now more factories open up as more capital becomes available to fill the creative void of ideas in the market place, wages continue to climb and productivity continues until BOOM ECONOMIC PROSPERITY!  

As I've said, I'm not asking people to hoard most of their money. I'm just asking people to maintain a positive balance and to have a small portion of money set aside for a rainy day or retirement.

I do not think that saving a small percentage of income and getting out of debt would hurt us, even if we're talking about most of the nation. Maybe it will hurt a small bit in the short term, but in the long run it's better for our country to remain in the green.

In fact, what will hurt us is if people start going into bankruptcy in record numbers and stop spending altogether simply because they max out their credit cards and can't get a loan. Debt is not an endless supply of money.



People are already starting to do that. The enormous debts people have decreases their spending power. We may be looking at a credit crises in addition to a housing crises in the near future. That will crash the economy a lot worse than people spending slightly less and remaining in the green.



How exactly does having lots of money in interest going to creditors allow anybody to spend more money?

I'd much rather have a smaller paycheck from real money than a larger paycheck from IOUs. Because if those people with the IOUs don't give back what they owe, my company may be forced to cut my paycheck drastically, and may even start laying people off.



. . . and when citizens start spending money they don't have, you have the very dangerous situation of what happens when a citizen finds out they've taken so much from their future that they can't afford the present.

A person only makes a finite amount of money during their lifetime. Debt is taking money from the future and spending it today. The problem is, people have no idea how much money they will make in the future, and may reach the point where they've spent all of their future money. Usually their credit is killed long before that point, but it's not a good idea to ask people to spend money they'll make in a future that can't be predicted.

Keep in mind: Nobody truly makes money except the treasury department of the nation. All we are doing is redistributing it. Personally, I'd rather distribute my money to companies that I believe could help me, rather than to MasterCard or Visa.

In fact, what happens if we fall into a depression due to increased saving and decreased spending?

Well, guess what - we still have money to spend, because we've saved! That lower paycheck isn't quite as important, because we can always draw from the bank account if we can't afford something. We can continue spending during a depression.

The whole point of having some savings is to be able to smooth out the depressions of the economy that occasionally happen.

Again, not hoarding: Just keeping a positive balance so we can better handle the occasional fluctuations in economics.

Oh a point on the definition of a recession and a depression

If it is happening to you, it is a recession
If it is happening to me it is a depression

First I want to say that fundamentally I agree with you: a little fiscal responsibility would certainly do us good. I just wanted to make the (incredibly oversimplified) point that our economy runs on money spent.


True but (at least in the short term) not particularly relevant, since money not spent doesn't do anyone any good.


You a right of course: One of the assumptions I made was that money in the bank is like money buried in a field. Which is nonsense, and the investment factor serves as a counterbalance to some of what I said.


Haha... keep dreaming; more like now they don't need so many workers and can lay some off. But I concede some of that investment goes back to the workers.


But the "crisis" results from people being unable to go into debt(and then spend). Thus general saving will cause this crisis just as effectively as loss of available credit.


What exactly do you think those creditors do with the money?


But that is all money is in the first place: it's just an IOU that can't be redeemed for anything. Increasing debt all around doesn't hurt the economy.


That is exactly the point! The more the money get circulated, the more the economy is stimulated.


Why? MasterCard and Visa don't bury your money in the ground any more than say, Stardock.


So now my overall point. This seems to be more or less what both of you are saying.
The more we spend (and less we save) the more the economy is stimulated.
The more we save (and less we spend) the more he economy is "relaxed".
Let's consider the extremes first:
1. Incredible spending and massive debt
This will drive the economy up to incredible, but unsustainable, levels. Everyone will be rich until something happens to break the cycle, when everything will crash down into abject poverty. (Think 1920's)
2. Massive saving and limited spending
No demand means no production. Economy crawls along with massive unemployment.

Since neither is a particularly desirable scenario, the "ideal" economy lies somewhere in between.
In general, the more spending, the larger the economy, but also the more volatile. This means greater fluctuations in prosperity.
More savings reduce volatility, but also decrease prosperity in general.
What the ideal balance is is one of the fundamental questions of economics, and I don't think anyone will ever agree.

I do agree however, that the current level of spending in the United States is to great, and it may be about to bite us.




Haha... yeah, and if it is happening to him, it's just a market fluctuation.

ignore this

Thanks for the correction - looks like I'm going to have to pull out my accounting book to ensure the correct usage of terms. I'll do my best to be more careful.



Of course it's nonsense. It's an extremely liquid asset. It can be easily withdrawn and spent!

Again, I'm not advocating purposeless hoarding. I agree that stopping all spending just to hoard it without any purpose is silly. I would never advocate piling up money just for the sake of piling up money.

When I save (be it actual cash or through a bank), I generally do so for a purpose: There is something I want to eventually spend it on. It can be a computer component, it can be retirement, it can even be an unforeseen emergency. Yes, I do eventually spend most of the money I save.

One of the nice things about a bank account is that the money isn't siphoned off somewhere else from your point of view, and it won't present you with the danger of a debt spiral as long as you maintain a positive balance. Overall, it's a lot less stressful than maintaining debt.



Exactly: When you go far enough into debt, you lose your ability to spend!! That's pretty contradictory to your objective of keeping the money flowing and keeping people spending.

I want to keep money moving just as much as you do - and going into debt will not accomplish that. Going into debt is not equivalent to spending more.

Having a debt simply says you might perform the second half of a transaction in the future. The cash hasn't flowed yet, but might flow in the future.

Problem is, the cash part of the transaction is becoming more unreliable. The money isn't actually flowing in all cases, because the creditors are demanding that the money flow faster than people can sustain.

Cash and bank accounts are extremely liquid assets, and can be used more effectively for performing transactions than debt can. You just have to be patient enough for it to collect the money before you spend it. You're still forced to maintain a sustainable cash flow rate, but without the much higher stress of debt.

Sure, you don't get the instant gratification - but frankly, it's the instant gratification that is causing people stress, because people are attempting to maintain more expenses than they have income. Money isn't magic - you can't sustain larger expenses forever!

Debt does not increase cash flow. It simply delays transactions and allows unsustainable expense rates for the individual.



They give me pieces of plastic that cause millions of people stress, they give me frequent flier miles I'll never spend, they pay their employees, and a few other things.

One thing is for sure: They don't make great games like Galactic Civilizations.

The whole point is that I prefer to control where my money goes, and if I'm siphoning off money to a creditor, it's not going where I want it to go.

Again, I'm not advocating hoarding. I'm simply saying that the entire transaction should take place immediately using cash on hand or an available bank account.

In addition, what do you think my bank does with the money? Do you think that compound interest is magical and creates itself? Nope. Even though you don't see it, the money is actually being used by the bank. The loan somebody else takes out for a car or house is paying that interest in my account.



It can be redeemed for goods and services .

In fact, you should be informed that banks are required, by law, to save some cash. That's what FDIC insurance is all about. The economy can fall to pieces and you can still withdraw money from your bank up to the insured amount with zero fear of losing it. Interestingly enough, this has been in place for a long time and hasn't killed our economy.

In conclusion: You can use cash or a bank account for spending, just as you can a credit card. It's not any different, except the credit card leads to a lot more stress.

In fact, my bank offers a "check card," and I can use it just like a credit card. It has all of the benefits of being able to spend my money instantly, but without any of the stress of remaining in debt. I am absolutely no less liquid with my bank account than I am with my credit card.

"This planet has -- or rather had -- a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper, which is odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy." --Douglass Adams

@nfelddav

Please, when quoting someone use the entire sentence not just part of it, you sliced my sentence right in the middle and completely changed the meaning of it and made it imply something that was not stated



this makes it sound like I am saying companies will suddenly change the way they behave where as what was said was



This is a practice that many companies do now, so no ha ha sure they will magical thinking is involved; it is a currently existing practice that would not go away.

So in the future please make sure you use the entire sentence in a quote so as not to deliberately alter the meaning and end up with something that was never said.
I make enough stupid remarks on my own without assistance from others..

To turn this discussion round on its head a little bit...

Can someone clarify how exactly is the US a superpower at the moment?

I personally believe it never was, and never will be a superpower, but will reserve what evidence I have until some people have responded first.

Well, during the cold war, there were two superpowers, the USA and the Soviet Union. Each one of us built up enormous supplies of both nuclear and conventional weapons, and there is no question we had the largest militaries in the world. The Soviet Union eventually collapsed, leaving the USA as the remaining superpower.

Each one of us had large enough nuclear supplies to wipe the world out several times over. I'm pretty sure we still have some of those supplies from the cold war. Theoretically, we still have the power to lay enormous destruction if desired.

The USA certainly has an extremely effective military. The fight against Saddam was very swift, and his military crumbled against US forces. While we currently have some troubles against unconventional forces, there is no question that we are very effective against another conventional military.

We have over the last 50 years had the largest industrial base in the world. Our industrial base was larger than the rest of the worlds combined at one point.
We had a military that was perceived as unbeatable.
We had an economy that was so well developed compared to the rest of the world that we had at our disposal the highest standard of living ever obtained by any country in history.

So by the definition of a super power, we were the bomb!
–noun

1. An extremely powerful nation, esp. one capable of influencing international events and the acts and policies of less powerful nations.
2. Power greater in scope or magnitude than that which is considered natural or has previously existed.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.


Let’s Look at the first definition



Can you deny that we have or have had the capability to influence international events AND (not or but and) influence the policies of other countries?

And by the second definition



I don’t think anyone has ever argued that the United States did not have the largest and most powerful economy in all recorded history.

So, by the definition given in the dictionary we are a superpower. (other dictionaries give similar definitions as well).

Oh and as to your statement about us having never been one... Growl, snarl, growl.. ggeerr...

SO THERE!!!!!

America has about 50% left of its nuclear stockpile - Russia has considerably more, but that's only speculation, because of those that remain, an unknown number has deteriorated beyond use. Furthermore, although the United States does have the capacity to wipe out the world as you say, it doesn't have the liberty or the freedom to do so. Elimination of the world, or in fact, larger portions of it, or in fact even SMALL portions of it would economically damage the United States beyond repair. For this, I quote Amy F. Woolf's U.S. Nuclear Weapons: Changes in Policy and Force Structure. She goes into great detail, but I'd suggest reading up on the Targeting subsection.

---

@SpacePony: Dictionary defintions are all well and truly great, but real-life implications always seem to interced in splitting the world into simple definitions.



Correct to an extent. You had the largest industrial base, and it is still impressively large. Yet, that does not make the United States self-sufficient by any means. Marshall Plan was instituted so the United States could have trading partners. The prospect of the US and a communist Europe was something that the United States leadership could not afford to face. Furthermore, if the United States indeed has such a strong economy as you said, if indeed it is the most powerful nation in the world (economically) - then why does it import more than it exports? Why do European products get placed on the US market, but not vice versa? Look at some of the agreements between the two nations to understand that trade is very much one sided. Read Apres L 'Empire by Emmanuell Todd - he highlights a few points, such as the American reliance on foreign investment - in fact, over 865 billion dollars are poured into the US every single year in order to fuel its continued survival. Compare this to other ancient superpowers, such as Rome - where wealth flowed from the centre of the empire outwards. The trend only shifted when the Rome began its slow decline and the Byzantine Empire began its ascent. (Niall Ferguson, Colossus: The Price of America's Empire) You could argue here that US then was large, and is merely in its decline. The only problem with such a line of thought would be that the US had always been a great importer of things - that is in fact, how your economy is sustained. America is cheap because its good are produced overseas. Now imagine say shift from import to internally-made goods - a 20% increase in all living costs (quite feasible given the current price differences between American goods in Europe and American goods in America). To those of you who cant imagine what this means - most economists tend to panic when we talk about annual increase in living costs (that's not net increase we're talking about - so offset for inflation) of more than say 7%.



I'm not denying that the US has had the capacity and the capability to influence international events - but while it has influenced others, it has also been influenced. China's strength made it rethink its Asian commitments in the 1960/70s. Russian encroachment on Europe in the early 2000 also made it rethink its obligations to Russia, resulting in the semi-famous Delong Telegram. Even small countries - Iran , North Korea, ilicit responses from the United States.

If the US were truly a superpower, it would not have the need to react to such circumstances, it would merely shrug them off. The problem is that although Korea and Iran are not a direct threat to the United States, they are direct threat to US strategic allies in respective regions, and hence the US has an obligation to assist those nations. True superpowers dont need friends in the long run - British Empire, Roman Empire.

The US needs the rest of the world to survive at this point - its policies towards the rest of the world are outdated, Cold-War typecast - of villians and heroes. The Bush Doctrine set out three main principles: unilateralism, spread of democracy, and pre-emption. My question is - what on Earth is there to pre-empt? How can you pre-empt a terroist move? The answer is that there is in fact nothing to pre-empt. The 9/11 attacks were horrible and completely unjustified - but that's what terrorist are good at. The broader picture is however that absolutely nothing fundamental changed in the world composition. 9/11 was a terrorist attack of a larger magnitude than has been seen before - but it still follows a pattern that was evident before. Terrorist have always attacked the United States, and always will - but this recent War on Terror is nothing more than an attempt by the United States to place itself at the forefront of international relations, because of its increasing decline of importance. The point is - during the Cold War, the US balanced out the USSR - that was its glorious point of international relations. Cold War ends, and the US is left without a clear role in the world. The truth of the matter is that in USSR's place arose a vast number of smaller powerful states - basically the rest of the world. The US cannot possibly fight the rest of the world for supremacy - not only because it cannot win, but because it cannot identify a single enemy. Hence the War on Terror. Perpetuated by media in particular, it seeks to highlight the importance of security issues, and tries to place the United States as the global leader in this fight. As excuses go, its fairly good - the War on Terror will never end, because no one can even tell you when it began - hence it keeps the US in an inflated position as a global leader.

The end of it all: The US isn't a superpower, nor it really ever was - it does not act with the same impudence and true freedom that characterized such superpowers as the history of this world has seen.

---

Now just to clarify - a lot of thought has gone into this writing, because in fact, this is a part of my doctoral thesis. This has been bashed left and right by academics in two nations, one of which is in fact the United States. Although I am nominally biased in my point of view, I do seek to see other's point of view as well. This post wasn't meant to be inflamattory in any way, and please don't take it as such - it's just meant to prod at something that most people would dismiss.

I leave you with a last cute quote by Emmanuell Todd:

"A nation that seeks to become the leader of the world cannot count on free reign and power - in fact, it is more likely to be influenced than to influence others. The reason for this is simple - any nation that leads the world NEEDS the world to understand that it is leading."

well i just stopped reading after the first 3 pages. if anything causes the USA to fall apart it will be the moral decline of our culture. have you considered how the world would react to an isolationist america?

some debate points so far...

oil: an isolationist america would spend money on its home grown technologies building renewable infrastructure within a decade. oil fields that have been dormant for 50 years would be rekindled and used to supply the population until the new techs reach mass market. military systems will begin R&D into renewable and high effeciency systems and roll out new assets within 15yrs. meanwhile the rest of the world focuses on who is going to use who's oil.

technology: again we would look interally again to fill jobs, research, and refine advancements that have been outsourced. our vast numbers of highly edumacated people will force social advancement.

imigration: an isolationist USA would close its borders to imagration. millions of people from all over the world will have to live in their own country. the social freebies of the US are no longer available. sorry to everyone in china, india, and central america that pay for their internet access with money sent from uncle sam.

guns: its our law. i can have a gun. as many as i want in fact. having one is a responsibility. when people are not responsible with them people get hurt. so learn to shoot. if your country doesn't allow you to have one, maybe you should consider imigrating to the USA.

space: isolationist americans wouldnt dare allow other nations access to our space assets. so you will have to go to russia for any heavy lifting. good luck.

finance: the emerging markets that are gaining strength using EUROs will evaporate when americans switch investments back to american soil. so long euro. only the pound will be left to help you out and just how well will that do when we close our pocket books to anything not on our soil.

i know this is extream but its obvious that only a few are seeing the big picture. the USA wont dispear because too much of the world relies on what we have. and we rely on what the world can offer so we can make more money to give back to the world. if this cycle fails then america switches back to isolationism in a way that hasnt been seen for 100yrs. people want america. if they admit it or not.

on a side note: people that even think for a second that "america deserved 9/11" are total lunitics. thousands of innocent people living their lives deserve to be murdered? those that seriously beleive that need to be institionalized because they are the ones setting up bombs for little children to find on the streets. and to all the librals and moderates, use your heads for a second. re-read 1984 and think about what is happening around you before you push canadates that want to reform our nation into a lukewarm pool of bial.

-end rant-

Because we have a lot of money and we want a lot of goods. I don't see importing/exporting as the best way to measure an economy.



I would disagree. Friendships are beneficial, and help immensely in the long run.

Basically, you're measuring our superpower status based on trade between nations and your personal opinions of the war on terror?

I suppose if you change the definition of a word. At least it gives a discussion point.

"are militray is the best in the world..."
- When you compare it to what? Throughout all of our post Cold War conflicts, we've only messed with the little guys who would obviously be defeated. However, this might be argued with our current war that you so bravely defend –are you sure we won? If so, please enlighten me, what when and how did we win? Because all I hear on the news is that more and more U.S. soldiers keep on dying and families at home just wonder “for what?” Soldiers in Iraq can’t wait to get the heck out of there, Iraquis themselves say that they can’t wait for the U.S. to leave; matter of fact, I’ve seen countless reports and interviews of Iraquis saying that they wish Saddam was back because he now seems like the lesser of two evils. This war, for me, was a complete defeat for the U.S., you say we crushed them, I beg to differ. We’ll talk again in 5-10 years when all the veterans are back home and you start hearing countless reports of families splitting, home abuse, veterans in jails, veterans homeless, veterans with mental problems, murders, suicides, deaths, and so on and so on. You’d be able to trace all that back to today… I dare you to tell me then that we truly won anything.
- Back to the topic at hand, if you are talking about our superiority in traditional warfare? Then of course I’ll agree that we do have the most powerful army, however, people don't really play by the conventional rules anymore.

"All thos countrys would lose big time if they fired nuks..."
- What do you mean by that? EVERYONE loses if ANYONE fires a nuke. To elaborate, hypothetically, let us imagine that there is a nuclear exchange between (from your list) France and Russia; do you really think that the resulting nuclear fallout and nuclear winter will respect and refrain from spreading beyond the national boundaries of the aggressors? Think about that for a second.
- This intertwines with my previous comment; no one really plays by the rules anymore and that is why it really doesn't matter that we have the "best" conventional army around. As you should know, it only takes ONE guy with a backpack, whom the Star Wars-class satellites someone else mentioned are UNABLE to shoot down, to take out the better part of a major city. Of course, the destructive capacity of such a small nuke would be "negligible" on a continental scale. However, what most people don't really take into consideration is, as I mentioned above, the horrible potential of the resulting fallout that will impact a far larger area and, in the long run, will bring about all sorts of irreparable damages to the population (you and me) who at the end are the heart and soul of a nation. Now that, sir, is the warfare of today, against which no army stands.
- This brings us full circle to my original reply, humanity needs to change and “business as usual” is dead. Imagine a group of 20 guys with nuclear backpacks, you place one in each major city and voila, you now have the power to cripple the most powerful nation in the world. The U.S. is asking for this when they continue with their xenophobia, why can’t we just embrace one another? I understand the ignorant hatred of other nations and cultures, they do not have the luxury of free access to information that we have so they, in a sense, are “innocent” because they haven’t been “enlightened” yet. However, we have, I believe it is our responsibility as citizens of the world to infect them and let the 21st century revolutionize their ideals.
- Just as we have the potential to completely wipe ourselves out of this world, we also have the potential to usher in the golden age of humanity.

"Also DuderSeb you act like we are spending all are money on the military, we spent more during the cold war..."
- Please point to where I stated that we spend ALL the money in the military. I said we spend a lot, I saw the numbers one time (too long ago to be accurate anymore) but I'm pretty certain we still put a very large chunk of our entire economical worth into the military or military-related purposes.
- By the way, the Cold War had a lot to do with the military. You say we spent more back then, well sir; that was all military spending.
- Case in point, our current deficit thanks to the war is of about a trillion dollars. Please, let your imagination run wild and allocate this money into medical research or space exploration, or heck, BOTH! Tell me if the resulting scenario in your head looks worse than were we stand today.
"I dont think alot of people would have enough money to spend on the posibilty of a cure. Sorry but life is not always fair..."
- (READ ABOVE.) To illustrate:
- This ties in directly with my aforementioned comment. Of course "people" by themselves do NOT have the economic prowess to invest in such ventures, but you know who does? The government. Imagine that we were to divert the hideous amounts of money and mental power that are placed to the military into humanitarian causes here and aboard. Now we are talking not only about the potential for cures, but the “enlightenment” I mentioned earlier.


Do some basic risk management and think outside of your self-centered box. Tell me which option looks better.

- Seb

Yes, I'm sure we overthrew the Iraqi government.



Yes, you've seen people hand-picked for their hatred of us and interviewed by the media.



. . . which is why we must do everything possible to ensure the wrong people never, ever get a chance to get nukes.



If it weren't for the war, I'm sure we'd find something else, like our health care system, to blame it on. I'm not confident other presidents would spend less than Bush: They'd just spend it on something else.



Cool, nice new hospital! Say, who is that guy with a backpack? Is that a wire? *screen turns white, movie ends*

"The end of it all: The US isn't a superpower, nor it really ever was - it does not act with the same impudence and true freedom that characterized such superpowers as the history of this world has seen."

In the sense that the US is not a super power in the traditional sense your very much correct. The idea of Empire has changed radically even during this century... no longer is it using your military to exert direct control on a nation. Instead you used a combo of military and economic power to keep less powerful countries in your sphere of influence. This allows greater control as you have many Allys who owe you a lot rather than vassal states who you have to actually directly control. The idea of traditional Superpowers or Empires died at the beginning of last century, but it just trashed around for years in the process.

The danger in the process is that as the US begins an economic decline many people who live here (not all) may not want to give up the luxuries and status we achieved by being in charge of 25% or so of the global resources at any given time. What we see in the US policy is a throw back to the Age of Empire. As we lose control of resources we seem to have every indication of wanting to try to exert direct control over those resources again using force if we need to. This would not be a huge issues if it were just France or England we are dealing with but the US military power is something else entirely. We have access to unprecedented conventional and nuclear power. We are dangerous in a way that the declining USSR was not. Even at their hight they did not have as much power and influence as we do now.

And with the US there is an additional factor that is something that has confounded my German and Chinese friends for a long time... our foreign relations are not always dictated my rational thought. Often it is dictated by idealism. There are many people in the US who believe we have things to offer other cultures that can be of benefit to them. We are after all the nation of the Enlightnment... we are the big experiment. No other nation has taken those ideas as far or as high. And we have a very difficult time understanding why any other country wouldn't want free press or a democratic system like that of the US. The truth is some of them don't. But we just continue to go on pushing no matter how reluctant another nation may be and regardless of if our ideals are even viable in that nation. I see this as our primary hope in preventing the US from lashing out too hard but I fear too many people in the USA are not paying enough attention and we will end up doing astounding damage as we slide into our decline mostly because of apathy.

Have to go to work so can't talk too much more. Maybe later.

A trade deficit is the first sign of a weak economy - when your nation begins to rely on overseas investments/goods to float itself, it's the first sign that something should be done. Remember Clinton's "Its the economy stupid"? Well... The man was right!
US goods are getting pushed over to the side by increasingly well made goods from Asian nations - fact of life. Look at such end-high-tech as processors for example - half of them are diffused in Malaysia, even if they are assembled in Germany.

The same applies for the EU - however - the EU has one distinct advantage that it has internal export/import markets - which makes a big difference to the composition of EU trade. They are more likely to trade with one another, and only engage in such international trade as is clearly seen to benefit them. Imperialistic tariff nostalgia? Most certainly!



It is extreme indeed, but not without its just cause. I do agree with you that the world needs the United States, but the opposite is also true. You seem to believe that internally the United States could survive on its own - which I am afraid to admit is a bit wrong. No nation in the world anymore can possibly hope to survive on its own - look at North Korea for example. Extremist, yes, but none the less a good show of what happens to those nations that isolate themselves from the world. It doesn't matter how clever you are, or how rich you are, or how strong you are - you cannot hope to take on the rest of the world. While you are sitting happily inside your own borders, the rest of the world would advance faster than you would - and sooner or later someone would say "Hey, look at those savages over there who don't talk to anyone... lets just take their land." Something like that happened to Iraq, anyway.



US is set to spend 698 billion dollars on its military in 2009.
Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation (CAC): US Defense Spending 2001-2009

Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation (CAC): US Defense Spending 2001-2009

Compare this to the second largest spender in the world - China - 58 billion
International Herald Tribune (IHT): China increases military spending



So if someone were to overthrow the United States government because of its human rights abuse in Guantanmo bay, its disregard for established international relations, and other such accusations as can be tacked onto here - would that in fact make anyone win?

No, I think focusing on the downfall of a government is the wrong way to go about it. I personally believe that only when the United States takes responsibility for re-establishing domestic security in Iraq - and only when it SUCCEEDS in doing so, then can you call it a win. At the moment, the US is like a man who got in, got laid, got the woman pregnant, and is now thinking of running away. It really is as simple as that.



Other than you and your allies of course, because you are the right people? Because your foreign policy isnt at times fueled by a crusader-like propaganda and ideology? Open your eyes my friend - the United States is ideological (thought not as corrupt) as most of the small countries hoarding nukes at the moment.



That sounds pretty good for my thesis - would you mind if I borrowed it and did some more research on it?

I just noticed they actually adjusted the graph on the Centre for Arms Control website - notice that US's spending on the Afghanistan/Iraq war is three times greater than the entire military budget of China. Just something for all of you to nibble on.

I heard the weak dollar is what really is causing the high increase in the gasoline however I just found this article:

WWW Link

I hate seeing a people starve but at least I know our gas problems aren't only because of the weak dollar.

This tends to be a tad situational: The goods that the Chinese produce we could likely produce ourselves, while the oil in the Middle East is something we're too dependent on.

I think the USA, if we really needed to, could obtain most of the resources we need without trade. It would hurt our economy pretty badly, and it's not something I'd desire, but I think it is theoretically within the realm of possibility.



We don't use the terms "import" or "export," but we still buy and sell goods, services, and raw materials inside our nation, which is essentially the same thing, except with a lot less overhead.



Well, China hasn't fought a major war in years, as far as I know, and aren't really engaged in that much military activity recently. Since they aren't really actively fighting that much, they really don't need that much spending for their military. A low state of readiness is much cheaper to maintain than a high state of readiness.



Whoever overthrew our government and replaced it with a new government would win, yes. Although a complete overthrow of the US government, including creating a new constitution, is an extremely difficult task. You'd have to wipe or contain nearly all 300 million of us.



Yes, that would be an additional win on top of what we already have. We do not have only a single objective in Iraq, and just because some objectives have been met doesn't mean all objectives have been met.



Now you're putting words into my mouth. I'm not saying that the "right" people shouldn't be working on getting rid of their own stockpiles. Yes, I would much rather people leave the "nuke club" than join.