don't. know really. I find it funny that America was fighting communism for 50 years, and now is being bailed out by communists!
Is America going to collapse?
- Thread starter Ossian
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You think your gas prizes are high ?
Here in germany 1 litre super costs from 1.54 to 1.59 Euro, that would be 5.83 to 6.02 Euro/gallon and that would be 8.01 to 8.27 USD/gallon.
How about you dump that crappy american car and buy a fuelefficent one, like a german or japanese ?
Oh, by the way, here a proof of german gas prizes:
http://benzinpreis.de/statistik.phtml
Here in germany 1 litre super costs from 1.54 to 1.59 Euro, that would be 5.83 to 6.02 Euro/gallon and that would be 8.01 to 8.27 USD/gallon.
How about you dump that crappy american car and buy a fuelefficent one, like a german or japanese ?
Oh, by the way, here a proof of german gas prizes:
http://benzinpreis.de/statistik.phtml
I think I might see a reason why you can't find a job... There's no Indian language, there's many languages in india. Read a book...Ossian said:
joebear15 said:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Arable_land_percent_world.png
That map shows the percentage of arable land in each country.
As you can see, China's arable land percentage is just below yours, and India's surpasses that of the U.S. by far. Both countries are beginning to invest heavily in science. Which means it's only a matter of time until China and India have are able to pose a serious threat to U.S. agriculture.
As for the U.S.' investment in the arms industry. I suppose it likely going to keep the U.S. ' economy up but it's the same thing as before with China, India, Russia and Brazil all on their way to become world superpowers those countries might pose a threat to the U.S. arms industry as well. Especially China, China has no ethical boundaries they don't really care how devastating the weapons they make are, or who they sell them to.
Ultimately the U.S. should invest in making technological and scientific advancements, seeing as it still is the scientific powerhouse at the moment, but Europe seems very willing and able to take that title away from the U.S.
(a)In terms of world empires, the US empire wasn't/isn't much more than a pebble compared the British empire (and don't start going on about the 'war' of independence - that just made US economically unprofitable for exploitation, it was a loss in the same way that the US 'lost' the Vietnam war - the Brits could have steamrolled the US just like the US could have nuked Vietnam (or just razed it to the ground), but blowback and vulnerabilities from other genuine world competitors at that time made it unviable. The US empire isn't even really as powerful as the Spanish empire at its absolute height. The world survived those, and with China and the former 3rd world lifting their production the US collapse will be barely a speedbump.
(b) You want to know just how much the US economic collapse means to the rest of us. In Australia we've had a boom throughout your entire recession. Despite having state-run universal healthcare and all those goodies that you call either 'socialist' or unaffordable - even having those didn't stop us from being utterly unaffected by your economic self-implosion. Oh, and our debt is around 3% of GDP (and we freak about that - your debt, from memory is around 60% or more of your GDP...), if you want an idea of how little a relationship there is between large gov't (or medium gov't in our case) and debt.
(c) The US isn't going backwards so much as it is missing out on an increasing proportion of what the developed world takes for granted. Universal healthcare is the popular example at the moment, but in most first-world countries there's programs - funded - to pay for retraining and even relocation. Sure, students might have rental difficulties if they're doing a course with long hours that prevents them from working part-time, as the gov't allowance is a little bit low, but to actually have to PAY for classes would be unthinkable. It would just be crazy - the economy benefits from having people in work, so why would you place economic barriers in the way of economic fluidity? And these aren't countries that are socialist - it's just standard first-world practice. Your popular perspective of what is economically 'socialist' is skewed in a way unique to the US alone.
For most of the last 50 years, the US had among the highest production/person but always had a problem with distribution in that the average person had such a low share that the standard of living was worse than for poorer countries. But now countries like Australia are actually richer than you guys in terms of production per person (yes, 'per person', OBVIOUSLY
), AND your distribution problem has become worse than ever.
It seems that you've got yourselves to the point that you've reduced your taxes below the level needed to maintain a functioning state, and that the US is no longer able to paper over the gaps in its infrastructure - and by that, I mean economic infrastructure - readily available and effective higher education and vocational training, if there's jobs available in engineering and there's an unemployed truck driver that has the brains and the ability to be a good engineer, then the economy needs to provide a path to get that guy trained and into the engineering job where he can actually contribute. If your society is so stratified that solid chunks of the population just can't access the means of economic progression, or can't change sectors when technology makes old ones obsolete, then sooner or later things are going to implode.
Over here, and everywhere in the world that I've travelled (which is pretty much everywhere except south america), it's taken for granted that this is what is happening to the US. In the main conservative newspaper over here, The Australian, the economists/forecasters taking the most OPTIMISTIC view (for the US that is) are saying 'don't worry, the US will remain a dominant power for WAY longer than people think - they won't lose power until around 2050-2060'. 2050-2060 is the outside estimate for the longest that we expect you to remain dominant. That's the optimistic best case scenario for which other countries are preparing. And it seems that you guys are hell-bent on speeding that up cutting your infrastructure even further and refusing to even contemplate addressing your debt by raising more revenue (taking a realist position that you've probably snookered yourself militarily into a position where you can't actually get a significant withdrawal for some time now).
You wouldn't even necessarily have to raise the taxes for the average person that much. The GST - a consumption tax on all goods and services - was considered ultra-right-wing when it was introduced by our conservatives over here, but for you guys it would actually be a more progressive system than what you have - you could increase your revenue considerably without raising taxes overall for the average person. And at least it provides a secure tax base that can't be avoided through creative accounting. Heck, I'm not saying that that's your magic answer, or even that it would necessarily be a good idea, but you've got no chance, zero chance at all, unless you find a way to fund infrastructure and economic/social fluidity.
(b) You want to know just how much the US economic collapse means to the rest of us. In Australia we've had a boom throughout your entire recession. Despite having state-run universal healthcare and all those goodies that you call either 'socialist' or unaffordable - even having those didn't stop us from being utterly unaffected by your economic self-implosion. Oh, and our debt is around 3% of GDP (and we freak about that - your debt, from memory is around 60% or more of your GDP...), if you want an idea of how little a relationship there is between large gov't (or medium gov't in our case) and debt.
(c) The US isn't going backwards so much as it is missing out on an increasing proportion of what the developed world takes for granted. Universal healthcare is the popular example at the moment, but in most first-world countries there's programs - funded - to pay for retraining and even relocation. Sure, students might have rental difficulties if they're doing a course with long hours that prevents them from working part-time, as the gov't allowance is a little bit low, but to actually have to PAY for classes would be unthinkable. It would just be crazy - the economy benefits from having people in work, so why would you place economic barriers in the way of economic fluidity? And these aren't countries that are socialist - it's just standard first-world practice. Your popular perspective of what is economically 'socialist' is skewed in a way unique to the US alone.
For most of the last 50 years, the US had among the highest production/person but always had a problem with distribution in that the average person had such a low share that the standard of living was worse than for poorer countries. But now countries like Australia are actually richer than you guys in terms of production per person (yes, 'per person', OBVIOUSLY
), AND your distribution problem has become worse than ever.It seems that you've got yourselves to the point that you've reduced your taxes below the level needed to maintain a functioning state, and that the US is no longer able to paper over the gaps in its infrastructure - and by that, I mean economic infrastructure - readily available and effective higher education and vocational training, if there's jobs available in engineering and there's an unemployed truck driver that has the brains and the ability to be a good engineer, then the economy needs to provide a path to get that guy trained and into the engineering job where he can actually contribute. If your society is so stratified that solid chunks of the population just can't access the means of economic progression, or can't change sectors when technology makes old ones obsolete, then sooner or later things are going to implode.
Over here, and everywhere in the world that I've travelled (which is pretty much everywhere except south america), it's taken for granted that this is what is happening to the US. In the main conservative newspaper over here, The Australian, the economists/forecasters taking the most OPTIMISTIC view (for the US that is) are saying 'don't worry, the US will remain a dominant power for WAY longer than people think - they won't lose power until around 2050-2060'. 2050-2060 is the outside estimate for the longest that we expect you to remain dominant. That's the optimistic best case scenario for which other countries are preparing. And it seems that you guys are hell-bent on speeding that up cutting your infrastructure even further and refusing to even contemplate addressing your debt by raising more revenue (taking a realist position that you've probably snookered yourself militarily into a position where you can't actually get a significant withdrawal for some time now).
You wouldn't even necessarily have to raise the taxes for the average person that much. The GST - a consumption tax on all goods and services - was considered ultra-right-wing when it was introduced by our conservatives over here, but for you guys it would actually be a more progressive system than what you have - you could increase your revenue considerably without raising taxes overall for the average person. And at least it provides a secure tax base that can't be avoided through creative accounting. Heck, I'm not saying that that's your magic answer, or even that it would necessarily be a good idea, but you've got no chance, zero chance at all, unless you find a way to fund infrastructure and economic/social fluidity.
You're describing it as if the stimulus packages are over-growing the economy. What do you mean by 'blow up'?Lyx said:
Also consider this: Even with the government stepping in to keep the economy afloat, people are suffering, a lot. Think how bad it would've been if the government hadn't stepped in!
Improbable. Don't worry. The implication of the phrase 'not impossible' is an obvious one. What I don't know is what you are claiming is unlikely. What do you think is unlikely exactly?
Prove that governments rarely make use of efficiency savings.
Justify a budget surplus. Why is a budget surplus a good thing? Why is a deficit a bad thing?
What is bad about spending currently increasing?
Printing money is called quantitative easing. Quantitative easing works. Whether you object to it morally or not, the fact of the matter is that it props up aggregate demand, reduces the value of fixed-rate debts, and increases exports while decreasing imports. These are all to an extent good things.
A stimulus package is designed to increase (Stimulate) Aggregate Demand. AD is composed of:
Consumption-- People buying stuff
Investment-- Firms buying stuff
Government Spending-- Government buying stuff
Exports-Imports-- Foreigners buying your stuff-You buying foreign stuff
A stimulus package can involve many measures including, but not limited to, quantitative easing- a monetary measure. The bailing out (Purchasing) of the banks is one other example of a stimulus measure, designed to prop up investment. This allowed the banks to operate at regular levels even during the time of crisis, which in turn allowed firms to borrow to buy more stuff, and people to borrow to buy more stuff. A stimulus package also includes fiscal measures, such as raising or lowering certain taxes, and increasing or decreasing certain government expenditures.
So you see how a 'Stimulus Package' is not just a nice sounding description for 'Printing Money'.
Technically there is no Chinese language either, it is a language family. What people call Chinese is really Mandarin Chinese (sometimes referred to as Standard Chinese). However, it is pretty difficult to just start speaking any language, you usually have to study it first.Pontus Hashis said:
Is that all you've got to say for yourself? Really? I type out that big long post explaining myself and questioning you and you don't even bother to dignify my with a response?Lyx said:
Don't try and hide your apparent ignorance of economics behind a veneer of arrogance. It's incredibly rude.
The recession is technically "over", but things aren't fixing themselves overnight. It's like a forest fire. It may have burned itself out, but it's going to take time for the surviving seeds to sprout from the ashes. You can bet it will, though. Personally, I think it's the fault of the stores doing the "no payment necessary with no interest for three years!" and the insurance help things saying "borrowed money, but feel like screwing the loaners just because you're cheap, and didn't use the money wisely? That's fine! You don't have to pay them back!"Ossian said:
True. I just noted on "indian" becus I had right befor seen a joke about Indian and nativ americans. If I had thought it trough I would have said the same thing about "chinese".NaramSuen said:
You'll probably find a job, and that won't be the end of the US.
But unless you fix your oil addiction the US and the whole world will be in trouble. Currently without oil we can only feed about 1 bilion ppl, and it i gonna run out some where this century. Though the sheer price would probably stop consumer consumption of oil before then.
The problem with the US is that your used to low oil prices, something you won't be able to maintain for ever. If i where to covert out local prices to dollars and gallons we'd be paying 7,76 US dollar per gallon right now so stop complaining about 5 dollar. I mean take the bus or carpool.
Of course as long as the US stays on its conservative don't rock the boat campaign its gonna go down hill until its to late to avoid failure.
But unless you fix your oil addiction the US and the whole world will be in trouble. Currently without oil we can only feed about 1 bilion ppl, and it i gonna run out some where this century. Though the sheer price would probably stop consumer consumption of oil before then.
The problem with the US is that your used to low oil prices, something you won't be able to maintain for ever. If i where to covert out local prices to dollars and gallons we'd be paying 7,76 US dollar per gallon right now so stop complaining about 5 dollar. I mean take the bus or carpool.
Of course as long as the US stays on its conservative don't rock the boat campaign its gonna go down hill until its to late to avoid failure.
don't worry, this is just another time of depression, every 80 years there's an economical crysis like this, and things were WAAAAAAAAY worse in the previous two ones than this one is
I like to think that after this ends I won't be so sad if I get into a bad situation, since there can allways be worse
I like to think that after this ends I won't be so sad if I get into a bad situation, since there can allways be worse
EVERY major civilization ends at some point, there is likely NOT going to be a place called America in three thousand years from now.
RoboFrance on the other hand, totally different story.
RoboFrance on the other hand, totally different story.