the us can't be self sufficient because of plain trading logic ever heard of the law of David Ricardo. through trade a country can increase his wealth.
Yes they can, but if the world climate changes to a point where the US is no longer welcome as a trading partner it will actually hurt the world more then the US. That was my whole point. So many economies in the world count on the purchases made by us. Not specifically our government, but the American people. We still are the wealthiest nation and we still have the most disposable income. So, if we were to close our boarders and become self sufficient (which we can, prolly won't, but anyone that thinks it isn't possible is delusional) it would end up hurting the rest of the world more then it would hurt the US.
That is why no matter what the world thinks of our policies they won't condemn us completely. They want our money.
The biggest problem America faces is not our Foreign Policy. It is the fact that more and more people are having less and less children. Our work force will not be able to sustain our retirees. For example:
A mom and dad have 1 child. He grows up and meets the girl of his dreams who is also an only child. They have 1 child. When that child grows up it will need to support both Mom and Dad and 4 Grandparents through retirement. It just doesn't make sense. With people living longer and longer these days, they really need to either start social security and medicare at a much older age, or we need a completely new program to take care of people.
Me personally, I think they should just say screw social security, medicare, and any other social programs aimed at helping retires. I say we should be self sufficient our selfs and be able to invest that money individually.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
the us can't be self sufficient because of plain trading logic ever heard of the law of David Ricardo. through trade a country can increase his wealth.
Yes they can, but if the world climate changes to a point where the US is no longer welcome as a trading partner it will actually hurt the world more then the US. That was my whole point. So many economies in the world count on the purchases made by us. Not specifically our government, but the American people. We still are the wealthiest nation and we still have the most disposable income. So, if we were to close our boarders and become self sufficient (which we can, prolly won't, but anyone that thinks it isn't possible is delusional) it would end up hurting the rest of the world more then it would hurt the US.
That is why no matter what the world thinks of our policies they won't condemn us completely. They want our money.
The biggest problem America faces is not our Foreign Policy. It is the fact that more and more people are having less and less children. Our work force will not be able to sustain our retirees. For example:
A mom and dad have 1 child. He grows up and meets the girl of his dreams who is also an only child. They have 1 child. When that child grows up it will need to support both Mom and Dad and 4 Grandparents through retirement. It just doesn't make sense. With people living longer and longer these days, they really need to either start social security and medicare at a much older age, or we need a completely new program to take care of people.
Me personally, I think they should just say screw social security, medicare, and any other social programs aimed at helping retires. I say we should be self sufficient our selfs and be able to invest that money individually. Please, go into politics. So I'll still be alive to witness the total annihilation of the US.
the us can't be self sufficient because of plain trading logic ever heard of the law of David Ricardo. through trade a country can increase his wealth.
Yes they can, but if the world climate changes to a point where the US is no longer welcome as a trading partner it will actually hurt the world more then the US. That was my whole point. So many economies in the world count on the purchases made by us. Not specifically our government, but the American people. We still are the wealthiest nation and we still have the most disposable income. So, if we were to close our boarders and become self sufficient (which we can, prolly won't, but anyone that thinks it isn't possible is delusional) it would end up hurting the rest of the world more then it would hurt the US.
That is why no matter what the world thinks of our policies they won't condemn us completely. They want our money.
The biggest problem America faces is not our Foreign Policy. It is the fact that more and more people are having less and less children. Our work force will not be able to sustain our retirees. For example:
A mom and dad have 1 child. He grows up and meets the girl of his dreams who is also an only child. They have 1 child. When that child grows up it will need to support both Mom and Dad and 4 Grandparents through retirement. It just doesn't make sense. With people living longer and longer these days, they really need to either start social security and medicare at a much older age, or we need a completely new program to take care of people.
That happens every where in the western world, the netherlands for example have the same problem.
Me personally, I think they should just say screw social security, medicare, and any other social programs aimed at helping retires. I say we should be self sufficient our selfs and be able to invest that money individually.
You don't know what the law (theory) of ricardo is, do you? Allow me to explain
the theory of comparative advantage explains why it can be beneficial for two parties (countries, regions, individuals and so on) to trade if one has a lower relative cost of producing some good. What matters is not the absolute cost of production but the opportunity cost, which measures how much production of one good is reduced to produce one more unit of the other good. Comparative advantage is critical to understanding modern international trade theory.
Under absolute advantage, one country can produce more output per unit of productive input than another. With comparative advantage, even if one country has an absolute (dis)advantage in every type of output, it can benefit from specializing in and exporting those products in which it has a relative advantage (i.e., a lower opportunity cost) and importing the goods in which it has a relative disadvantage.
the us can't be self sufficient because of plain trading logic ever heard of the law of David Ricardo. through trade a country can increase his wealth.
Yes they can, but if the world climate changes to a point where the US is no longer welcome as a trading partner it will actually hurt the world more then the US. That was my whole point. So many economies in the world count on the purchases made by us. Not specifically our government, but the American people. We still are the wealthiest nation and we still have the most disposable income. So, if we were to close our boarders and become self sufficient (which we can, prolly won't, but anyone that thinks it isn't possible is delusional) it would end up hurting the rest of the world more then it would hurt the US.
That is why no matter what the world thinks of our policies they won't condemn us completely. They want our money.
The biggest problem America faces is not our Foreign Policy. It is the fact that more and more people are having less and less children. Our work force will not be able to sustain our retirees. For example:
A mom and dad have 1 child. He grows up and meets the girl of his dreams who is also an only child. They have 1 child. When that child grows up it will need to support both Mom and Dad and 4 Grandparents through retirement. It just doesn't make sense. With people living longer and longer these days, they really need to either start social security and medicare at a much older age, or we need a completely new program to take care of people.
That happens every where in the western world, the netherlands for example have the same problem.
Me personally, I think they should just say screw social security, medicare, and any other social programs aimed at helping retires. I say we should be self sufficient our selfs and be able to invest that money individually.
You don't know what the law (theory) of ricardo is, do you? Allow me to explain
the theory of comparative advantage explains why it can be beneficial for two parties (countries, regions, individuals and so on) to trade if one has a lower relative cost of producing some good. What matters is not the absolute cost of production but the opportunity cost, which measures how much production of one good is reduced to produce one more unit of the other good. Comparative advantage is critical to understanding modern international trade theory.
Under absolute advantage, one country can produce more output per unit of productive input than another. With comparative advantage, even if one country has an absolute (dis)advantage in every type of output, it can benefit from specializing in and exporting those products in which it has a relative advantage (i.e., a lower opportunity cost) and importing the goods in which it has a relative disadvantage.
And you are not understanding what I am saying. I didn't state the the US would make more money being self sufficient. I didn't say they would be great off. I said they could survive. Other countries on the other hand (China for instance) could not be self sufficient and maintain any similar way of life.
See the difference. You are talking about economic strength and growth and I am talking about the ability to actually make what we need to survive within our boarders.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
I'm curious as to the opinions that might be had on this subject; in a century , how will the American empire stand?
Definition of an Empire is a congolomerate of city states that forms into a nation and then takes over neighboring countries and to forcefully integrate those defeated countries into their own religious, polictial, and social systems. America has never been an Empire.
Personally, I think we are about to enter a decline. We're too factious a group and have lost our cultural homogeny.
Who knows....maybe. Everyone is too busy yelling at each other and none of us are bothering to complete humane objectives.
I think that in a century our current centralized Federal system will have been overthrown. We'll have more of an Articles of Confederation type structure; a loose collection of states who share trade and self-defense treaties.
Highly doubtful. If anything, we will become a socialized state. I dont see us going into a confederation structure with city states. That went out of style in 750 BC
I think it's quite possible that blocks of states will primarily consist of one racial demographic almost exlusively (i.e., TX, AZ, NM and CA will be hispanic, the NE mainly caucasian, etc.). That I AGREE with 100%.
Of course a cetralized government won't go down without a fight, so we'll see some very brief civil war, but not too long as most of the troops will have come from the poor sector and will refuse to engage those of similar backgrounds.
With the USA no longer united, our position on the world stage becomes far less influential; perhaps on par with that of Britain or France today.
But hey, I know what I think. What do you think the future holds? I think someone has been reading too much of this.
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
You've got to keep in mind, America has been through a fracturing and survived. The Civil War was the ultimate fracturing of our peoples. Brother fighting brother on the battlefield. But the thing is, if things are left up to the people, this country will survive because people recognize the importance of freedom in the end.
What is more dangerous to this countries survival is the rise of the federal government in power. Then you have no chance of anything changing to suit our needs because we have no means of expression. What scares me right now is how willingly people are to give up those freedoms for "security". I try to stay away from overly conspiratorial theories, but when you look at the events that have happened I can see how some peoples imaginations would lead them in those directions. It seems almost too perfect of a plan. Scare the hell out of people, tell them you can protect them in their time of fear, and you can horde all the power to a few people.
I hope that I'm wrong, but when you look at history it has been repeated many times. Look at Rome and what destroyed it. There was a power grab at the top and eventually this led to the execution of any of the tribunes who fought the Senate. And all the while the people of Rome feared the aristocracy to the point of inaction. It's one of the reasons that the founding fathers told us it's our responsibility to maintain control of our country. Our country does not belong to a few people with a lot of money, it belongs to all of us. And even the most poorest of persons in our country is intended to have as much power as the richest. His vote counts as one, just as the rich mans does. And representatives are to consider, under their oath, the rights of the minority as much as the majority or they have failed in their duty.
But when we start neglecting that responsibility and feeling as though we are not important or we don't have any responsibility to our nation that's the beginning of the end. And when we give up our power to the federal government, you have made a pact with the devil. Government is staffed by some of the most corruptible of men.
Yes i believe what you say, Because its not the people who are giving up there freedoms though. Its the senate passing laws so we can give up our freedoms because everyone is scared of terrorism. You can't stop terrorism i wish people could understand that and any measure of action will not prevent it. I'm not conspirotor but i do believe our government had a part in the 9/11 terror attacks. Everyone gets side-tracked with the Towers (sad event) but forget about the pentagon. The pentagon is a unreachable target by any arial offensive such as a plane. That area is a no fly zone unless you have certain codes that will let you into that airspace or someone at the pentagon turned off the automated defensives. The Cold War put these provisions in place and this is why i believe the government is behind it. But really what can anyone do about it but do somthing no one really wants. You cant compare our civilization to the roman empire due to the fact that well because of CNN. we can talk within seconds to someone across the nation so everyone is informed really quickly. but big companies are being to greedy i believe and they will do anything for money is what i think im trying to say. Money, want more cause a tragedy, get more money. thats whats happening in america now. hopefully the next president can get this undercontrol. And don't do somthing retarded like elect Hilary Clinton. (she was for the war, and now is trying to say she wasn't hypocrit when things go wrong) least bush is for the war, always for the war, and will die before he says he isnt for the war with all the negitive comments about it. I dont like bush but least he sticks to what he says about the war. They knew there wasn't WMD's they just want to have a West presence in the middle east because Russia fell and no one is willing to give America a altimatom. Iran is trying to but soon Iran will be invaded. Watch its going to go down soon. Bush doesnt give a F%%%.
And you are not understanding what I am saying. I didn't state the the US would make more money being self sufficient. I didn't say they would be great off. I said they could survive. Other countries on the other hand (China for instance) could not be self sufficient and maintain any similar way of life.
See the difference. You are talking about economic strength and growth and I am talking about the ability to actually make what we need to survive within our boarders.
The part you are missing is that China has already crossed the threshold of being less dependant on the US then the US is on them. The current US economic structure isn’t sustainable without massive borrowing, mostly coming from China and Europe. If the US were to become isolated that money would stay in those economies and stimulate growth, while the US would be deprived of it’s primary source of growth.
And you are not understanding what I am saying. I didn't state the the US would make more money being self sufficient. I didn't say they would be great off. I said they could survive. Other countries on the other hand (China for instance) could not be self sufficient and maintain any similar way of life.
See the difference. You are talking about economic strength and growth and I am talking about the ability to actually make what we need to survive within our boarders.
The part you are missing is that China has already crossed the threshold of being less dependant on the US then the US is on them. The current US economic structure isn’t sustainable without massive borrowing, mostly coming from China and Europe. If the US were to become isolated that money would stay in those economies and stimulate growth, while the US would be deprived of it’s primary source of growth.
You guys are all missing what I am saying. I am not talking about economies or growth. I am talking about a Countries ability to sustain itself without imports. The US is the only country with sufficient natural resources, Income, and educated manpower to do this. China while having tons of money (due to the way they have kept the value of their money out of competition with other currencies. ) and educated manpower, does not have sufficient natural resources to do this. That is why they have started to take such a keen interest in the Middle East and Africa. They need the Oil coming out of there.
Yes the US wants the Oil coming from the Middle East, but our country doesn't NEED it. If all of the oil in the Middle east, Africa, and South America suddenly was gone, we would be the least likely of the major countries to have massive failure due to it.
That was the only point i was trying to make. Yes taking our economy out of the world economy (while pretty much impossible to do) would hurt our growth as a nation.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Fulmanfu - I entered the exact same discussion with you about America's debt about 1 or 2 years ago. You said I understood little about market economy and dismissed everything I said. Now, you pretty say many of the same things I did back then, why the 180?
Not that I don't respect you for it! It's great that you are open minded and intelligent about opinions.
You guys are all missing what I am saying. I am not talking about economies or growth. I am talking about a Countries ability to sustain itself without imports. The US is the only country with sufficient natural resources, Income, and educated manpower to do this. China while having tons of money (due to the way they have kept the value of their money out of competition with other currencies. ) and educated manpower, does not have sufficient natural resources to do this. That is why they have started to take such a keen interest in the Middle East and Africa. They need the Oil coming out of there.
Yes the US wants the Oil coming from the Middle East, but our country doesn't NEED it. If all of the oil in the Middle east, Africa, and South America suddenly was gone, we would be the least likely of the major countries to have massive failure due to it.
That was the only point i was trying to make. Yes taking our economy out of the world economy (while pretty much impossible to do) would hurt our growth as a nation.
Not quite true. Russia for example has massive reserves of natural resources, much more than the U.S. does these days.
In fact, if it weren't for shoddy infrastructure and a collapsing economy, the USSR by all rights should have easily kicked our asses during the cold war.
Now, if the US had the guts and ability to annex Canada, Mexico and middle America, we would be in a much better position, thanks to untapped oil and coal reserves in both regions, along with other resources, not to mention all but eliminating one of our biggest border threats.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
I'm curious as to the opinions that might be had on this subject; in a century , how will the American empire stand? Personally, I think we are about to enter a decline. We're too factious a group and have lost our cultural homogeny.
I think that in a century our current centralized Federal system will have been overthrown. We'll have more of an Articles of Confederation type structure; a loose collection of states who share trade and self-defense treaties.
I think it's quite possible that blocks of states will primarily consist of one racial demographic almost exlusively (i.e., TX, AZ, NM and CA will be hispanic, the NE mainly caucasian, etc.).
Of course a cetralized government won't go down without a fight, so we'll see some very brief civil war, but not too long as most of the troops will have come from the poor sector and will refuse to engage those of similar backgrounds.
With the USA no longer united, our position on the world stage becomes far less influential; perhaps on par with that of Britain or France today.
But hey, I know what I think. What do you think the future holds?
Firstly, America (the United States) is not an empire. We do not conquer, absorb, and dominate countries for mercantile gain, unlike the history of the European powers. Sure, we liberate or nation build once in awhile, but there is monetary loss and human sacrifice to accomplish those noble goals, so this can hardly be called imperialistic.
As far as ethnicity goes, I think the races will continue to mingle and blend and lose their racial identity. After, how relevant is race anyway? Sort of like eye color; a meaningless detail.
I do think that government will try to become stronger and more centralized by offering the people government benefits which the people unwittingly pay with their own taxes. Security will rise and freedom will decline, and economically the whole thing might collapse.
But then again, America is different and defies historical precedents. We will have to see.
I'm curious as to the opinions that might be had on this subject; in a century , how will the American empire stand? Personally, I think we are about to enter a decline. We're too factious a group and have lost our cultural homogeny.
I think that in a century our current centralized Federal system will have been overthrown. We'll have more of an Articles of Confederation type structure; a loose collection of states who share trade and self-defense treaties.
I think it's quite possible that blocks of states will primarily consist of one racial demographic almost exlusively (i.e., TX, AZ, NM and CA will be hispanic, the NE mainly caucasian, etc.).
Of course a cetralized government won't go down without a fight, so we'll see some very brief civil war, but not too long as most of the troops will have come from the poor sector and will refuse to engage those of similar backgrounds.
With the USA no longer united, our position on the world stage becomes far less influential; perhaps on par with that of Britain or France today.
But hey, I know what I think. What do you think the future holds?
Firstly, America (the United States) is not an empire. We do not conquer, absorb, and dominate countries for mercantile gain, unlike the history of the European powers.
Yes, it does. Culturally and economically. Also, Vietnam, Iraq, ...
As far as ethnicity goes, I think the races will continue to mingle and blend and lose their racial identity. After, how relevant is race anyway? Sort of like eye color; a meaningless detail.
I do think that government will try to become stronger and more centralized by offering the people government benefits which the people unwittingly pay with their own taxes. Security will rise and freedom will decline, and economically the whole thing might collapse.
But then again, America is different and defies historical precedents. We will have to see.
I'm curious as to the opinions that might be had on this subject; in a century , how will the American empire stand? Personally, I think we are about to enter a decline. We're too factious a group and have lost our cultural homogeny.
I think that in a century our current centralized Federal system will have been overthrown. We'll have more of an Articles of Confederation type structure; a loose collection of states who share trade and self-defense treaties.
I think it's quite possible that blocks of states will primarily consist of one racial demographic almost exlusively (i.e., TX, AZ, NM and CA will be hispanic, the NE mainly caucasian, etc.).
Of course a cetralized government won't go down without a fight, so we'll see some very brief civil war, but not too long as most of the troops will have come from the poor sector and will refuse to engage those of similar backgrounds.
With the USA no longer united, our position on the world stage becomes far less influential; perhaps on par with that of Britain or France today.
But hey, I know what I think. What do you think the future holds?
Firstly, America (the United States) is not an empire. We do not conquer, absorb, and dominate countries for mercantile gain, unlike the history of the European powers.
Yes, it does. Culturally and economically. Also, Vietnam, Iraq, ...
As far as ethnicity goes, I think the races will continue to mingle and blend and lose their racial identity. After, how relevant is race anyway? Sort of like eye color; a meaningless detail.
I do think that government will try to become stronger and more centralized by offering the people government benefits which the people unwittingly pay with their own taxes. Security will rise and freedom will decline, and economically the whole thing might collapse.
But then again, America is different and defies historical precedents. We will have to see.
America has no intention of turning Iraq into a state or a protectorate. Nor did we in Vietnam. We just want to prop them up as free men and leave. Period.
I'm curious as to the opinions that might be had on this subject; in a century , how will the American empire stand? Personally, I think we are about to enter a decline. We're too factious a group and have lost our cultural homogeny.
I think that in a century our current centralized Federal system will have been overthrown. We'll have more of an Articles of Confederation type structure; a loose collection of states who share trade and self-defense treaties.
I think it's quite possible that blocks of states will primarily consist of one racial demographic almost exlusively (i.e., TX, AZ, NM and CA will be hispanic, the NE mainly caucasian, etc.).
Of course a cetralized government won't go down without a fight, so we'll see some very brief civil war, but not too long as most of the troops will have come from the poor sector and will refuse to engage those of similar backgrounds.
With the USA no longer united, our position on the world stage becomes far less influential; perhaps on par with that of Britain or France today.
But hey, I know what I think. What do you think the future holds?
Firstly, America (the United States) is not an empire. We do not conquer, absorb, and dominate countries for mercantile gain, unlike the history of the European powers.
Yes, it does. Culturally and economically. Also, Vietnam, Iraq, ...
As far as ethnicity goes, I think the races will continue to mingle and blend and lose their racial identity. After, how relevant is race anyway? Sort of like eye color; a meaningless detail.
I do think that government will try to become stronger and more centralized by offering the people government benefits which the people unwittingly pay with their own taxes. Security will rise and freedom will decline, and economically the whole thing might collapse.
But then again, America is different and defies historical precedents. We will have to see.
America has no intention of turning Iraq into a state or a protectorate. Nor did we in Vietnam. We just want to prop them up as free men and leave. Period.
Ur cute.
I'll explain it.
Welcome in the post world war 2 era. Look around you and notice that the world has changed. No longer do you see armies trampling borders to enlarge the riches of a country. Yes, we live in a far less heroic and romantic world. We'll miss those battlefields and insane generals for sure. But let's move on, shall we?
Nowadays a country, especially one like... let's say, the US of A (United States of Allthat'severgonnabeimportantoanyone, for you geographically impaired people) is run like a company. The government is the board of directors. And the shareholders are the voters. One of the few differences is that there's much less control over what the board of directors do and say than in a REAL coroporate situation.
Let's call our country company A.
What does a company want? Profit. Power. Money. And all of this with least resources (money and manpower) wasted. But what does company A see there? It's someone who doesn't want to play along, company B. It doesn't want to trade with the company A, or on the conditions Company A would want them to. Oh dear.
Well, what should one do then? Company A can open a few cans of lawyers, or it can compete the crap out of Company B. Really tricky is when a company/country doesn't want to use Company A's system of trade (for example communism). And then they won't buy the companies stuff and make Company A rich and powerful (for buying = depending upon). In the historical example Company A was about to be competed to pieces by the equally powerful Company C (C for CCCP). If ya can't attack them straight on... Try to get as many small companies on your side as you can, even if that means you'll have to use more "primitive" means. That's what Company A did then. And in the end its system proved to be the better one.
Back to Company A versus Company B. If you produce certain products (say movies, tv programs, clothes, cars, planes, weapons, ...) then you'd want everyone to need your products. This is where Company A (fka the USA) used it's post WW2 momentum to get everyone to need its products. And steadily its corporate empire enlarged and enlarged. Far less messy than in the old days, where you needed direct control and soldiers and battles to make huge profits from other countries.And noone's gonna attack the company they really, really need...
But times have changed. Company C re-emerged (C for China). And now there's this mega-holding called "EU". And there's companies who don't even want to trade their resources (*cough* oil *cough*) at the conditions Company A wants them to. They start to make demands, as the resource becomes scarser. There's even open source companies (Al-Qaeda) that want to take over powerful companies (Saudi-Arabia) trough aggressive advertisement (terrorism).
Dark days are coming for Company A. I wouldn't want to be one of its shareholders.
In a standard Colonial system, 9/10 colonies are military bases. Soveriegn soil in a foreign land, administrated by central government, populated by domestics.
The Empire is funded not through taxation and direct rule, but by trade.
Not every state within an empire is directly administered by central government. It is more typical for a system of client kingdoms to emerge. Friendly self-ruled government, that trade, fight alongside and base Empire troops. Centrally administrated provinces are a lot harder to control and more expensive to peacekeep. Client kingdoms are preferred.
There are three classic ways to expand an Empire.
1) Bribery. The use of soft power. Trade agreements, the sale of goods and technology. Economic manipulation. Trade linked to human rights, trade linked to military policy. This is the most common form of expansion.
2) Better the friend you know. A friendly government invites your troops into it's country to protect them, deeming life under you to be better than death under another. This is the second most common form of expansion.
3) Military Invasion. Removal of a foreign government by military force. The least common form of expansion.
Make no mistake, though the terms "Empire", and "Colonial Power" are not fashionable in the U.S., the U.S. is a colonial power with an empire nevertheless.
Every Empire that ever rose, just wanted to prop them up and leave them free. What did you think?, every culture of man that has ever been is evil except American's? American military intervention is good, only foreign military intervention is evil? That doesn't say much for your opinion of foreigners.
Idealists are evil. They value their opinions higher than peoples lives. Both sides in every war are always fighting for freedom.
Comments
That is why no matter what the world thinks of our policies they won't condemn us completely. They want our money.
The biggest problem America faces is not our Foreign Policy. It is the fact that more and more people are having less and less children. Our work force will not be able to sustain our retirees. For example:
A mom and dad have 1 child. He grows up and meets the girl of his dreams who is also an only child. They have 1 child. When that child grows up it will need to support both Mom and Dad and 4 Grandparents through retirement. It just doesn't make sense. With people living longer and longer these days, they really need to either start social security and medicare at a much older age, or we need a completely new program to take care of people.
Me personally, I think they should just say screw social security, medicare, and any other social programs aimed at helping retires. I say we should be self sufficient our selfs and be able to invest that money individually.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
That is why no matter what the world thinks of our policies they won't condemn us completely. They want our money.
The biggest problem America faces is not our Foreign Policy. It is the fact that more and more people are having less and less children. Our work force will not be able to sustain our retirees. For example:
A mom and dad have 1 child. He grows up and meets the girl of his dreams who is also an only child. They have 1 child. When that child grows up it will need to support both Mom and Dad and 4 Grandparents through retirement. It just doesn't make sense. With people living longer and longer these days, they really need to either start social security and medicare at a much older age, or we need a completely new program to take care of people.
Me personally, I think they should just say screw social security, medicare, and any other social programs aimed at helping retires. I say we should be self sufficient our selfs and be able to invest that money individually. Please, go into politics. So I'll still be alive to witness the total annihilation of the US.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
Yes they can, but if the world climate changes to a point where the US is no longer welcome as a trading partner it will actually hurt the world more then the US. That was my whole point. So many economies in the world count on the purchases made by us. Not specifically our government, but the American people. We still are the wealthiest nation and we still have the most disposable income. So, if we were to close our boarders and become self sufficient (which we can, prolly won't, but anyone that thinks it isn't possible is delusional) it would end up hurting the rest of the world more then it would hurt the US.
That is why no matter what the world thinks of our policies they won't condemn us completely. They want our money.
The biggest problem America faces is not our Foreign Policy. It is the fact that more and more people are having less and less children. Our work force will not be able to sustain our retirees. For example:
A mom and dad have 1 child. He grows up and meets the girl of his dreams who is also an only child. They have 1 child. When that child grows up it will need to support both Mom and Dad and 4 Grandparents through retirement. It just doesn't make sense. With people living longer and longer these days, they really need to either start social security and medicare at a much older age, or we need a completely new program to take care of people.
That happens every where in the western world, the netherlands for example have the same problem.
Me personally, I think they should just say screw social security, medicare, and any other social programs aimed at helping retires. I say we should be self sufficient our selfs and be able to invest that money individually.
You don't know what the law (theory) of ricardo is, do you? Allow me to explain
the theory of comparative advantage explains why it can be beneficial for two parties (countries, regions, individuals and so on) to trade if one has a lower relative cost of producing some good. What matters is not the absolute cost of production but the opportunity cost, which measures how much production of one good is reduced to produce one more unit of the other good. Comparative advantage is critical to understanding modern international trade theory.
Under absolute advantage, one country can produce more output per unit of productive input than another. With comparative advantage, even if one country has an absolute (dis)advantage in every type of output, it can benefit from specializing in and exporting those products in which it has a relative advantage (i.e., a lower opportunity cost) and importing the goods in which it has a relative disadvantage.
Yes they can, but if the world climate changes to a point where the US is no longer welcome as a trading partner it will actually hurt the world more then the US. That was my whole point. So many economies in the world count on the purchases made by us. Not specifically our government, but the American people. We still are the wealthiest nation and we still have the most disposable income. So, if we were to close our boarders and become self sufficient (which we can, prolly won't, but anyone that thinks it isn't possible is delusional) it would end up hurting the rest of the world more then it would hurt the US.
That is why no matter what the world thinks of our policies they won't condemn us completely. They want our money.
The biggest problem America faces is not our Foreign Policy. It is the fact that more and more people are having less and less children. Our work force will not be able to sustain our retirees. For example:
A mom and dad have 1 child. He grows up and meets the girl of his dreams who is also an only child. They have 1 child. When that child grows up it will need to support both Mom and Dad and 4 Grandparents through retirement. It just doesn't make sense. With people living longer and longer these days, they really need to either start social security and medicare at a much older age, or we need a completely new program to take care of people.
That happens every where in the western world, the netherlands for example have the same problem.
Me personally, I think they should just say screw social security, medicare, and any other social programs aimed at helping retires. I say we should be self sufficient our selfs and be able to invest that money individually.
You don't know what the law (theory) of ricardo is, do you? Allow me to explain
the theory of comparative advantage explains why it can be beneficial for two parties (countries, regions, individuals and so on) to trade if one has a lower relative cost of producing some good. What matters is not the absolute cost of production but the opportunity cost, which measures how much production of one good is reduced to produce one more unit of the other good. Comparative advantage is critical to understanding modern international trade theory.
Under absolute advantage, one country can produce more output per unit of productive input than another. With comparative advantage, even if one country has an absolute (dis)advantage in every type of output, it can benefit from specializing in and exporting those products in which it has a relative advantage (i.e., a lower opportunity cost) and importing the goods in which it has a relative disadvantage.
And you are not understanding what I am saying. I didn't state the the US would make more money being self sufficient. I didn't say they would be great off. I said they could survive. Other countries on the other hand (China for instance) could not be self sufficient and maintain any similar way of life.See the difference. You are talking about economic strength and growth and I am talking about the ability to actually make what we need to survive within our boarders.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
Yes i believe what you say, Because its not the people who are giving up there freedoms though. Its the senate passing laws so we can give up our freedoms because everyone is scared of terrorism. You can't stop terrorism i wish people could understand that and any measure of action will not prevent it. I'm not conspirotor but i do believe our government had a part in the 9/11 terror attacks. Everyone gets side-tracked with the Towers (sad event) but forget about the pentagon. The pentagon is a unreachable target by any arial offensive such as a plane. That area is a no fly zone unless you have certain codes that will let you into that airspace or someone at the pentagon turned off the automated defensives. The Cold War put these provisions in place and this is why i believe the government is behind it. But really what can anyone do about it but do somthing no one really wants. You cant compare our civilization to the roman empire due to the fact that well because of CNN. we can talk within seconds to someone across the nation so everyone is informed really quickly. but big companies are being to greedy i believe and they will do anything for money is what i think im trying to say. Money, want more cause a tragedy, get more money. thats whats happening in america now. hopefully the next president can get this undercontrol. And don't do somthing retarded like elect Hilary Clinton. (she was for the war, and now is trying to say she wasn't hypocrit when things go wrong) least bush is for the war, always for the war, and will die before he says he isnt for the war with all the negitive comments about it. I dont like bush but least he sticks to what he says about the war. They knew there wasn't WMD's they just want to have a West presence in the middle east because Russia fell and no one is willing to give America a altimatom. Iran is trying to but soon Iran will be invaded. Watch its going to go down soon. Bush doesnt give a F%%%.
The part you are missing is that China has already crossed the threshold of being less dependant on the US then the US is on them. The current US economic structure isn’t sustainable without massive borrowing, mostly coming from China and Europe. If the US were to become isolated that money would stay in those economies and stimulate growth, while the US would be deprived of it’s primary source of growth.
The part you are missing is that China has already crossed the threshold of being less dependant on the US then the US is on them. The current US economic structure isn’t sustainable without massive borrowing, mostly coming from China and Europe. If the US were to become isolated that money would stay in those economies and stimulate growth, while the US would be deprived of it’s primary source of growth.
You guys are all missing what I am saying. I am not talking about economies or growth. I am talking about a Countries ability to sustain itself without imports. The US is the only country with sufficient natural resources, Income, and educated manpower to do this. China while having tons of money (due to the way they have kept the value of their money out of competition with other currencies.Yes the US wants the Oil coming from the Middle East, but our country doesn't NEED it. If all of the oil in the Middle east, Africa, and South America suddenly was gone, we would be the least likely of the major countries to have massive failure due to it.
That was the only point i was trying to make. Yes taking our economy out of the world economy (while pretty much impossible to do) would hurt our growth as a nation.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Not that I don't respect you for it! It's great that you are open minded and intelligent about opinions.
Not quite true. Russia for example has massive reserves of natural resources, much more than the U.S. does these days.
In fact, if it weren't for shoddy infrastructure and a collapsing economy, the USSR by all rights should have easily kicked our asses during the cold war.
Now, if the US had the guts and ability to annex Canada, Mexico and middle America, we would be in a much better position, thanks to untapped oil and coal reserves in both regions, along with other resources, not to mention all but eliminating one of our biggest border threats.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
Firstly, America (the United States) is not an empire. We do not conquer, absorb, and dominate countries for mercantile gain, unlike the history of the European powers. Sure, we liberate or nation build once in awhile, but there is monetary loss and human sacrifice to accomplish those noble goals, so this can hardly be called imperialistic.
As far as ethnicity goes, I think the races will continue to mingle and blend and lose their racial identity. After, how relevant is race anyway? Sort of like eye color; a meaningless detail.
I do think that government will try to become stronger and more centralized by offering the people government benefits which the people unwittingly pay with their own taxes. Security will rise and freedom will decline, and economically the whole thing might collapse.
But then again, America is different and defies historical precedents. We will have to see.
Firstly, America (the United States) is not an empire. We do not conquer, absorb, and dominate countries for mercantile gain, unlike the history of the European powers.
Yes, it does. Culturally and economically. Also, Vietnam, Iraq, ...
As far as ethnicity goes, I think the races will continue to mingle and blend and lose their racial identity. After, how relevant is race anyway? Sort of like eye color; a meaningless detail.
I do think that government will try to become stronger and more centralized by offering the people government benefits which the people unwittingly pay with their own taxes. Security will rise and freedom will decline, and economically the whole thing might collapse.
But then again, America is different and defies historical precedents. We will have to see.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
Firstly, America (the United States) is not an empire. We do not conquer, absorb, and dominate countries for mercantile gain, unlike the history of the European powers.
Yes, it does. Culturally and economically. Also, Vietnam, Iraq, ...
As far as ethnicity goes, I think the races will continue to mingle and blend and lose their racial identity. After, how relevant is race anyway? Sort of like eye color; a meaningless detail.
I do think that government will try to become stronger and more centralized by offering the people government benefits which the people unwittingly pay with their own taxes. Security will rise and freedom will decline, and economically the whole thing might collapse.
But then again, America is different and defies historical precedents. We will have to see.
America has no intention of turning Iraq into a state or a protectorate. Nor did we in Vietnam. We just want to prop them up as free men and leave. Period.
Firstly, America (the United States) is not an empire. We do not conquer, absorb, and dominate countries for mercantile gain, unlike the history of the European powers.
Yes, it does. Culturally and economically. Also, Vietnam, Iraq, ...
As far as ethnicity goes, I think the races will continue to mingle and blend and lose their racial identity. After, how relevant is race anyway? Sort of like eye color; a meaningless detail.
I do think that government will try to become stronger and more centralized by offering the people government benefits which the people unwittingly pay with their own taxes. Security will rise and freedom will decline, and economically the whole thing might collapse.
But then again, America is different and defies historical precedents. We will have to see.
America has no intention of turning Iraq into a state or a protectorate. Nor did we in Vietnam. We just want to prop them up as free men and leave. Period.
Ur cute.I'll explain it.
Welcome in the post world war 2 era. Look around you and notice that the world has changed. No longer do you see armies trampling borders to enlarge the riches of a country. Yes, we live in a far less heroic and romantic world. We'll miss those battlefields and insane generals for sure. But let's move on, shall we?
Nowadays a country, especially one like... let's say, the US of A (United States of Allthat'severgonnabeimportantoanyone, for you geographically impaired people) is run like a company. The government is the board of directors. And the shareholders are the voters. One of the few differences is that there's much less control over what the board of directors do and say than in a REAL coroporate situation.
Let's call our country company A.
What does a company want? Profit. Power. Money. And all of this with least resources (money and manpower) wasted. But what does company A see there? It's someone who doesn't want to play along, company B. It doesn't want to trade with the company A, or on the conditions Company A would want them to. Oh dear.
Well, what should one do then? Company A can open a few cans of lawyers, or it can compete the crap out of Company B. Really tricky is when a company/country doesn't want to use Company A's system of trade (for example communism). And then they won't buy the companies stuff and make Company A rich and powerful (for buying = depending upon). In the historical example Company A was about to be competed to pieces by the equally powerful Company C (C for CCCP). If ya can't attack them straight on... Try to get as many small companies on your side as you can, even if that means you'll have to use more "primitive" means. That's what Company A did then. And in the end its system proved to be the better one.
Back to Company A versus Company B. If you produce certain products (say movies, tv programs, clothes, cars, planes, weapons, ...) then you'd want everyone to need your products. This is where Company A (fka the USA) used it's post WW2 momentum to get everyone to need its products. And steadily its corporate empire enlarged and enlarged. Far less messy than in the old days, where you needed direct control and soldiers and battles to make huge profits from other countries.And noone's gonna attack the company they really, really need...
But times have changed. Company C re-emerged (C for China). And now there's this mega-holding called "EU". And there's companies who don't even want to trade their resources (*cough* oil *cough*) at the conditions Company A wants them to. They start to make demands, as the resource becomes scarser. There's even open source companies (Al-Qaeda) that want to take over powerful companies (Saudi-Arabia) trough aggressive advertisement (terrorism).
Dark days are coming for Company A. I wouldn't want to be one of its shareholders.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
In a standard Colonial system, 9/10 colonies are military bases. Soveriegn soil in a foreign land, administrated by central government, populated by domestics.
The Empire is funded not through taxation and direct rule, but by trade.
Not every state within an empire is directly administered by central government. It is more typical for a system of client kingdoms to emerge. Friendly self-ruled government, that trade, fight alongside and base Empire troops. Centrally administrated provinces are a lot harder to control and more expensive to peacekeep. Client kingdoms are preferred.
There are three classic ways to expand an Empire.
1) Bribery. The use of soft power. Trade agreements, the sale of goods and technology. Economic manipulation. Trade linked to human rights, trade linked to military policy. This is the most common form of expansion.
2) Better the friend you know. A friendly government invites your troops into it's country to protect them, deeming life under you to be better than death under another. This is the second most common form of expansion.
3) Military Invasion. Removal of a foreign government by military force. The least common form of expansion.
Make no mistake, though the terms "Empire", and "Colonial Power" are not fashionable in the U.S., the U.S. is a colonial power with an empire nevertheless.
Every Empire that ever rose, just wanted to prop them up and leave them free. What did you think?, every culture of man that has ever been is evil except American's? American military intervention is good, only foreign military intervention is evil? That doesn't say much for your opinion of foreigners.
Idealists are evil. They value their opinions higher than peoples lives. Both sides in every war are always fighting for freedom.
Sheeple open your eyes.