|
|
|
#101
I'll agree with you that our focus on external affairs is deleterious, however, I'd argue that things like our crime problem (Which actually isn't much of a problem anyway... Crime has been steadily decreasing for decades, we just perceive it as being higher) are more a matter of the unavoidable attraction of unsolvable problems for career politicians.
Which is to say, it's not actually in our politicians' best interests to solve the problem. They benefit from its existence.
"Fear nothing except in the certainty that you are your enemy's begetter and its only hope of healing. For everything that does evil is in pain."
-The Maestro Sartori, Imajica by Clive Barker
Loco, please enlighten me. What on earth am I supposed to do because, in all my ignorant honesty, I don't have a clue. Guess that does make me unimaginative.Only a person with no imagination would believe those are the only options. I don't mean that as an insult. There are many other things to do, and you limiting things to just "single action" or "be quiet and go home" or "burn the witch"... well, that's just a lack of thought and imagination. I'm fairly sure if you applied yourself you could very quickly and easily come up with at least 10 more things to do, and some of those can prompt real change.
There is a difference, yes, but it isn't only percentage. Compare 47% of an Army active across the entire world to 23% of an Army that literally sits around all day and does absolurely nothing in the world. Nothing. Nada. 'Soldiers' here sit around all day smoking, drinking and texting. I cannot, for the life of me, see that as a sensible investment. And, from what people tell me, most European armies aren't too different. I know the Bundeswehr isn't - and Germany is a tad more active on the global stage. My point here is, okay, the US invests in their military like idiots but, when put in the context of what they're doing, the costs end up on a similar scale to most other armies. The only possible exception to this rule I see are the armies in the Middle East, which actually have a good reason to justify their spendings.Your answer is that every country does those things? Really? Every country has a military budget as big as the US? Every country has such a large disparity between rich and poor and with such a small percentage of the population controlling such a large portion of the wealth? Don't look at it in term of scale, look at it in terms of percentage. Where the US spends 10billion and Switzerland spends 6million, doesn't matter. Where the US spends 47% of the money it has an Switzerland spends 23%... that's a rather large discrepancy. The US has a military that should be able to dominate the rest of the world three times over based on the money it spends on it alone. It sends its military out there to fight anyone who pokes their heads up... and stumbles and fails miserably.
As for the US Army 'failing', You really consider Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, every other recent conflict a failure? On what terms? Political? Sure, they mess it up because the US media can't stand the news that a few people died. Apparently, no one can these days.
In military terms though, they're doing an OK job. Not great, no, but OK. The issue is lack of flexibility. The move from the purely military organization it was in the 90s to the more tactful kind of Army needed in today's conflicts takes forever. And it isn't only the US that can't manage that. To date, no military used in an intervention role has succeeded with splendor - at least, none I know of.
Space was propaganda. I'm not surprised they abandoned it. But let's assume they hadn't. What would you have wanted, colonies on mars? Let's get our own planet a little more stable before we try anything that ambitious.They abandoned space.
And decreased it, incerased it and decreased it again based on the current need. Most of that spending took place during the Cold War. Justified? Probably not. But they did help bankrupt the USSR that way and people seemed real happy when that wall came down.They increased their military.
True, probably in the name of profit. I don't believe that was a terribly intelligent decision but neither was pure communism. I also have my doubts that socialist states are really better off.They fostered a hate for anything socialist.
Rampant isn't the word I'd use for dropping crime rates.They allowed drugs and gangs to run rampant when just a fraction of their military budget, funneled to law enforcement, could have that well in hand.
Which made sense, given the political situation. Political pressure got the US what they wanted. Can hardly fault them for that.They poked at Russia every chance they got.
This I can't explain beyond an interest in natural resources.They poked at the Middle East every chance they got.
I thought the point of the UN was that no single state had power over all the others but I could be mistaken.They ignored governing bodies they helped to set up (UN)
Doesn't everyone?They loudly crowed about their greatness.
USSR, the 'other' superpower which could have used almost all of its assets for better purposes than they did. One revolution turned an agricultural society into a nation with hopes of a great, glorous future but... bankrupt. They certainly used that lead they were handed brilliantly too.Yeah, they used that lead brilliantly.
I'd argue the US didn't really fall but let everyone else simply climb to their level. And it's debatable if that's a bad thing for the rest of the world.And now they are sitting in the same place as everyone else?
#103
I can't agree with this statement. Firstly, where is "here?" Do they really sit around doing nothing, or is that all you see because they have a rotation of tours so there are (as in all armies, even at war) "idle" troops at home? I know some armed forces ex regulars who can tell me what it's like to be a British soldier.There is a difference, yes, but it isn't only percentage. Compare 47% of an Army active across the entire world to 23% of an Army that literally sits around all day and does absolurely nothing in the world. Nothing. Nada. 'Soldiers' here sit around all day smoking, drinking and texting. I cannot, for the life of me, see that as a sensible investment. And, from what people tell me, most European armies aren't too different. I know the Bundeswehr isn't - and Germany is a tad more active on the global stage. My point here is, okay, the US invests in their military like idiots but, when put in the context of what they're doing, the costs end up on a similar scale to most other armies. The only possible exception to this rule I see are the armies in the Middle East, which actually have a good reason to justify their spendings.
Firstly, the USA's military spending as a proportion of the world's spending has exceeded the 40% mark consistently, and has been as high as 47%. A country with a population of 310 million out of a world population of 6.9 billion. That's not even 5% of the world's population. That's only meant to be illustrative, however.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JYRckBgA0Q...ution-2008.png
http://kittyreporter.files.wordpress...ipri.jpg?w=640
http://www.realclearworld.com/blog/m...ending_big.png
Last year they spent 873 Billion. This year they're spending 903.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...s1n_30#usgs302
I seriously dispute the claim that "the costs end up on a similar scale to most other armies."
A lot of that money goes to supporting and maintaining nuclear weapons, including delivery methods such as Fleet Based Missile carriers (in particular the Trident subs). The Trident subs were a big point in the UK because they took up a hefty sum to maintain them, and there was debate as to how relevant they are in the current day. Maintenance meant stripping down the subs and building new ones iirc. Anyway, the US Navy maintains Tridents, amongst other... less necessary weapons.
Next point: Armies during peacetime don't do nothing. Soldiers, at least in the British Army, go on tours. A lot of them will be in allied territory, which makes sense. For example, you might go to Norway for half a year, do exercises (training) almost every day on that kind of terrain, learning to coordinate with allies. Part of the experience is learning to integrate into foreign communities where you might be serving in future, or with whom you will serve. NATO allies are the most common deployment. I know British soldiers who have done peacetime tours in Germany, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, and so on.
Sandwiched between each tour is home time. Generally you still have to report to Barracks to receive training. Armed forces is the kind of life where incessant training is a must. Afterwards, their second tour tends to be somewhere a little less friendly. It might be peacetime, but there are always more volatile areas in the world to deal with. An example of what your tour might be is being sent to be a peacekeeping force in Afghanistan.
As most of you know, the Coalition forces occupied Afghanistan in 2001. What you might not know is that a lot of other countries other than the USA and UK committed troops to the area. Italian, Canadian, French among others sent troops into Afghanistan. The difference is that the UK and USA took responsibility for the much more unstable Northern regions of Afghanistan, where suicide bombings were rampant, whereas the other allied forces took the comparably much more peaceful Southern Afghanistan.
So a Canadian infantryman in Afghanistan wouldn't be doing nothing, sending texts, smoking cigs and generally holding his dick. Beyond the most obvious roles of having a peacekeeping presence, patrolling, giving directions and doing training themselves, they do tasks like rebuild/ repair wells, build roads, coordinate with the local police force with regards to intelligence and actions, help distribute scarce supplies. Basically, the same kind of thing an American infantryman would do in a peaceful situation. It just doesn't cost a bomb while doing so, and these duties are by no means a waste of time.
Specifically, Afghanistan: as you may or may not know, in response to the Soviet war with Afghanistan, the USA sent weapons and officers to Afghanistan to train the local resistance to the USSR, using US weapons. Then the Americans try their luck, and they are given serious, serious problems against a guerrilla style they effectively shaped and supplied. Ouch.As for the US Army 'failing', You really consider Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, every other recent conflict a failure? On what terms? Political? Sure, they mess it up because the US media can't stand the news that a few people died. Apparently, no one can these days.
I think you might have misread/misunderstood his post. LoCo said that the USA ignored what the UN said... and the point is that that completely undermines the power of the UN. If the USA and China, two members with Vetos, don't care about the UN, why should anybody else? Kinda a similar problem as with the League of Nations.I thought the point of the UN was that no single state had power over all the others but I could be mistaken.
Last edited by Codex; 3rd Aug 12 at 6:32 AM. Reason: Thanks, TDATL
Originally Posted by Starblade
That was LoCo not Langy. At least I can't find Langy saying that in the thread. I may be mistaken.
You must be the change you want to see in the world.
-Mahatma Gandhi
#105
You're right, editing...
(I make that mistake far too often. Usually pick it up in proof reading though.)
Thanks.
#106
Clarifying the initial purpose of this thread was more about comparing the US to the "Roman Empire", not the "Holy Roman Empire", specifically watching the decline into economic mismanagement, and perceiving the cultural core move to a bread-and-circuses inward social and political focus without sufficient awareness of the rest of the world. This leads to a loss of ability to make wise decisions, and potentially leads to the loss of position as the "#1 nation in the world" (whatever that means). Apologies for the mis-title.
Some bits and pieces
Legalization of marijuana would help a LOT.
Awareness is certainly much higher than in the past and the electronic world has created entirely new mechanisms for crime. But that's just the historical perspective. How does the country stack up when compared to other nations? I think I'd read that they have the highest percentage of incarcerated citizens of any first world country, as well as the highest cost as a percentage of national GDP of keeping them there.Crime has been steadily decreasing for decades, we just perceive it as being higher
Who the hell thought "erectus" was a good species name for our ancestors?
Setup a moon base and lunar mass driver, then the colonies to provide the work force to use that material on a mass scale then build a crap ton of solar power sats. The eggheads had worked out the specifics in the late 60's, had we done that then we wouldn't be in a bind over renewable energy and could probably (subject to research in a few area's like electrically driven cars), go completely off oil and gas if we wished. The entire current set of problems simply wouldn't exist.Space was propaganda. I'm not surprised they abandoned it. But let's assume they hadn't. What would you have wanted, colonies on mars? Let's get our own planet a little more stable before we try anything that ambitious.
I don't know what i'm talking about, ignore me.
Thousands of years ago, Egyptians worshipped what would become our ordinary housecat. The cats have never forgotten this.
We have looming energy and resources problems. None of us can know if space based technologies can help with them or if it's just a pipe dream, but the potential is there. All I know for sure is that if "let's wait until we've sorted our current problems before doing something new" had ever before been a human trait then the species would still consist of a few hundred scratching their arses in some African valley.Space was propaganda. I'm not surprised they abandoned it. But let's assume they hadn't. What would you have wanted, colonies on mars? Let's get our own planet a little more stable before we try anything that ambitious.
Ignoring Kosovo, the only UN sanctioned war on that list, Iraq and Afghanistan have both been abject failures. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent and hundreds of thousands of lives lost has gained the US precisely fuck all in Iraq. They had no legitimate reason to go in and gained no benefit from doing so, so it was a failure. As for Afghanistan, over a decade, even more money and lives spent and it looks increasingly likely as soon as NATO troops leave the Taliban will walk right back in and send Karzai packing.As for the US Army 'failing', You really consider Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, every other recent conflict a failure? On what terms? Political? Sure, they mess it up because the US media can't stand the news that a few people died. Apparently, no one can these days.
If I was an American citizen I'd be asking serious questions about the competency of my politicians, that they spend so much tax money on the armed forces and yet hamstring them so badly when they're deployed that they're incapable of winning wars against third world militia. The country has enough money to be impregnable to attack by any foreign power while making sure no citizen goes without food, housing or medical care, yet the military is bloated beyond reason and necessity, then thrown hands-tied into idealogical wars while nearly 50 million people can't reliably get enough to eat. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/us/17hunger.html
Maybe America itself won't fall, or even be overtaken by another power for many years to come, but I doubt that the current political and idealogical structure will stand much longer. You can keep bullshitting people that socialism is pinko communist dogma, that every muslim hates them on a personal level or any other tripe to justify the upward draining of wealth, but sooner or later people are going to look around and ask why the rich have a safety net and they don't, why they do a 60 hour week and barely scrape by while some other guy does the same in a boardroom and gets multi-million dollar bonuses on top of a multi-million dollar salary and why they work hard for a politician to spend their taxes and their lives in idealogical wars.
@ Codex:
Here is Swizerland. And I am certain they sit around doing nothing. Except career soldiers (NCOs and officers), who are in the dwindling minority.I can't agree with this statement. Firstly, where is "here?" Do they really sit around doing nothing, or is that all you see because they have a rotation of tours so there are (as in all armies, even at war) "idle" troops at home? I know some armed forces ex regulars who can tell me what it's like to be a British soldier.
What other country has an army with that reach and scale? That's my point. I'm not saying the Army itself is justified. I'm saying the spending is proportional to the forces they are able to project. Give China, the UK anyone else a nuclear fleet of the same size and they'll be chalking out similar - if not more - money.I seriously dispute the claim that "the costs end up on a similar scale to most other armies."
True. Can't argue that. But, on the other hand, for almost 40 years that seemed a very important part of the MAD scenario. Today, not so necessary. So you suggest they just stop maintaining everything overnight? AFAIK there's a general tendency away from such technologies. It's just very slow, as are most things within conservative organizations.A lot of that money goes to supporting and maintaining nuclear weapons, including delivery methods such as Fleet Based Missile carriers (in particular the Trident subs). The Trident subs were a big point in the UK because they took up a hefty sum to maintain them, and there was debate as to how relevant they are in the current day. Maintenance meant stripping down the subs and building new ones iirc. Anyway, the US Navy maintains Tridents, amongst other... less necessary weapons.
I know they don't do nothing. And what you say is valid for professional armies. Germany, Denmark, Norway, are primarily conscript armies. France changed to pro in 2001.Next point: Armies during peacetime don't do nothing. Soldiers, at least in the British Army, go on tours. A lot of them will be in allied territory, which makes sense. For example, you might go to Norway for half a year, do exercises (training) almost every day on that kind of terrain, learning to coordinate with allies. Part of the experience is learning to integrate into foreign communities where you might be serving in future, or with whom you will serve. NATO allies are the most common deployment. I know British soldiers who have done peacetime tours in Germany, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, and so on.
Yet, for most conscripts, military service is a silly joke. And the countries shell out incredible sums for those one or two years, an investment they never get a return on. Even worse, they damage their own economy by knocking people into military service right before they could have gone to college or gotten another job. Or you end up in civil service - which makes a lot more sense but still gets in the way of higher education. The end result's that education takes even longer because you are obliged to work full time for 1-2 years, years during which you're just recycling government funds rather than adding to the economy.
andSandwiched between each tour is home time. Generally you still have to report to Barracks to receive training. Armed forces is the kind of life where incessant training is a must. Afterwards, their second tour tends to be somewhere a little less friendly. It might be peacetime, but there are always more volatile areas in the world to deal with. An example of what your tour might be is being sent to be a peacekeeping force in Afghanistan.Again, for a professional army, I agree. It's your job and you do something for your pay. Many countries aren't professionals though. And I seriously doubt mandatory conscription is a sensible investment in this day and age. In that regard, the US is way ahead of many states in Europe.So a Canadian infantryman in Afghanistan wouldn't be doing nothing, sending texts, smoking cigs and generally holding his dick. Beyond the most obvious roles of having a peacekeeping presence, patrolling, giving directions and doing training themselves, they do tasks like rebuild/ repair wells, build roads, coordinate with the local police force with regards to intelligence and actions, help distribute scarce supplies. Basically, the same kind of thing an American infantryman would do in a peaceful situation. It just doesn't cost a bomb while doing so, and these duties are by no means a waste of time.
I know there's many other countries involved but this seems to conflict with the 'US doing so badly' you state later.As most of you know, the Coalition forces occupied Afghanistan in 2001. What you might not know is that a lot of other countries other than the USA and UK committed troops to the area. Italian, Canadian, French among others sent troops into Afghanistan. The difference is that the UK and USA took responsibility for the much more unstable Northern regions of Afghanistan, where suicide bombings were rampant, whereas the other allied forces took the comparably much more peaceful Southern Afghanistan.
I'm not certain I agree with serious, serious problems. They did make a weird choice in going up against threats they created. Though it's debatable how usable much of the technology shipped there during the 80s is these days and what alternative they really had. Sitting around back home and yelling at terrorists to stop using Afghanistan as a base of operations probably wouldn't have hit too well with the public.Specifically, Afghanistan: as you may or may not know, in response to the Soviet war with Afghanistan, the USA sent weapons and officers to Afghanistan to train the local resistance to the USSR, using US weapons. Then the Americans try their luck, and they are given serious, serious problems against a guerrilla style they effectively shaped and supplied. Ouch.
The training they gave, I agree, is biting them back. But I disagree on it being horrible problems. At most, I'd say large-scale military intervention might not be the ideal solution. Though I may just be uninformed and they are indeed being handed their asses on a silver platter.
Oops. Yes, I did misread. In that, I agree. The US does ignore the UN - which obviously isn't the point of the organization. I'll refrain from going into the discussion of if the UN makes any sense.I think you might have misread/misunderstood his post. LoCo said that the USA ignored what the UN said... and the point is that that completely undermines the power of the UN. If the USA and China, two members with Vetos, don't care about the UN, why should anybody else? Kinda a similar problem as with the League of Nations.
@ Carl
I may be wrong, but I was of the oppinion NASA cost way too much back in the day and the reason they cut it was precisely because there wasn't the faintest hope of a realistic economic return. I agree, becoming oil-dependant was a stupid decision but that isn't limited to the US.Setup a moon base and lunar mass driver, then the colonies to provide the work force to use that material on a mass scale then build a crap ton of solar power sats. The eggheads had worked out the specifics in the late 60's, had we done that then we wouldn't be in a bind over renewable energy and could probably (subject to research in a few area's like electrically driven cars), go completely off oil and gas if we wished. The entire current set of problems simply wouldn't exist.
However I can't see investments in space solving any of our issues, much less granting a return on the invenstment. Do you have a reference for the solar satelites? I'm kind of intrigued how that would function because I don't see it working.
Edit:
@ Jonny
Oh, I mistrust my politicians entirely. But I disagree with the 'winning wars'. How do you define that? Decisive victory? Against guerillias? Forget it. It's a new form of warfare, one the worlds slowly getting used to. Militaries learn slowly. But I'm not certain where the blame for that is to be laid: the military of the politics.If I was an American citizen I'd be asking serious questions about the competency of my politicians, that they spend so much tax money on the armed forces and yet hamstring them so badly when they're deployed that they're incapable of winning wars against third world militia.
Propose a better solution. Let the taliban build up there? Well, that's just dandy. Then the war will be in our back yards. No thank you.Ignoring Kosovo, the only UN sanctioned war on that list, Iraq and Afghanistan have both been abject failures. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent and hundreds of thousands of lives lost has gained the US precisely fuck all in Iraq. They had no legitimate reason to go in and gained no benefit from doing so, so it was a failure. As for Afghanistan, over a decade, even more money and lives spent and it looks increasingly likely as soon as NATO troops leave the Taliban will walk right back in and send Karzai packing.
I agree.Maybe America itself won't fall, or even be overtaken by another power for many years to come, but I doubt that the current political and idealogical structure will stand much longer.
I live in a socialist state. People still wonder why the hell they have no money and complain they have to do way too much while others don't (it's just so much easier to complain). And Swizerland is one of the richest countries in the world with an incredibly well-off average population. Oh, and the Swiss are incredibly intolerant of foreigners (and muslims). I'm even labeled an evil foreigner and hard-liners want me to go back to the US like the germans should go home and the italians and everyone else who isnt swiss. Why? Apparently, we steal local jobs - jobs which no one else seems to be doing because getting an education is just too damned hard when you can sit at home and get spoon-fed.You can keep bullshitting people that socialism is pinko communist dogma, that every muslim hates them on a personal level or any other tripe to justify the upward draining of wealth, but sooner or later people are going to look around and ask why the rich have a safety net and they don't, why they do a 60 hour week and barely scrape by while some other guy does the same in a boardroom and gets multi-million dollar bonuses on top of a multi-million dollar salary and why they work hard for a politician to spend their taxes and their lives in idealogical wars.
I'd say that specifically is not a failing of the US but of humans in general.
Edit2: missed this
There is truth in not waiting for the ideal moment. But I have to wonder if today is really the day and age to run off on dubious tangents in the hopes of return. If it were such a simple decision, every nation on the world would be scrambling to harvest asteroids and claim the planets for themselves. Yet, for some unexplainable reason, they're not. I don't see how this relates to the US failing. At best, all of humanity is too set in its ways.We have looming energy and resources problems. None of us can know if space based technologies can help with them or if it's just a pipe dream, but the potential is there. All I know for sure is that if "let's wait until we've sorted our current problems before doing something new" had ever before been a human trait then the species would still consist of a few hundred scratching their arses in some African valley.
Last edited by mololu; 3rd Aug 12 at 8:53 AM.
#110
Mololu, could you please cut down on your quote use a little. Your posts are getting a bit hard to read. Thank you.
Yes. Our space budget is laughably small. Doubling it would make it a penny on the tax dollar, which isn't really very much at all. In 2011, NASA had a budget of $18.5 billion, which included everything from space shuttles to sun research. In that same year, Americans spent more than $50 billion, three times as much, on pets. My point is that giving money to space exploration isn't going to make us go hungry, or prevent us from getting healthcare, and it certainly won't leave us less educated.There is truth in not waiting for the ideal moment. But I have to wonder if today is really the day and age to run off on dubious tangents in the hopes of return.
Even if we discount the massively useful spinoffs that have come out of space exploration, and the fact that even the tentative first private reaches into space we're seeing now wouldn't have been possible without massive government-funded space exploration efforts, there's the massive cultural benefit that comes from space exploration. To paraphrase Neil deGrasse Tyson, no kid is going to say "I want to be an engineer so I can design an airplane wing that's .35% more fuel efficient!". But they will want to become engineers that design the high-efficiency wings you need to glide in Mars' thin atmosphere, or design the rocket thrusters that get you there. Throwing endless billions at space exploration won't magically solve all of our problems, but I think it's incredibly short-sighted and almost dangerous to view it as a luxury expenditure.
Explain that one please. What is your back yard? Mexico or Canada? And how are the Taliban getting there? Why are you ignoring local powers who have a vested interest in not having batshit fucking crazy neighbors randomly attack trade vessels and generally fuck up their significant source of income? Qatar and the UAE have bought massive amounts of hardware from the US and Germany, everything from Heckler&Koch submachine guns to Leopard-2 main battle tanks and MIM-104 Patriot antiair missile systems. During the recent uprisings as part of the Arab Spring, Qatar sent weapons to the rebels, and if NATO hadn't eventually gotten off their asses it probably would have been Qatari planes strafing tanks instead of French Rafales dropping guided blocks of concrete. I'm not claiming that doing nothing is the right way to go, but you make it seem like not invading Afghanistan would have resulted in war in Europe or the US.Propose a better solution. Let the taliban build up there? Well, that's just dandy. Then the war will be in our back yards. No thank you.
The Taliban weren't interested in doing a damn thing outside of Afghanistan. We could have totally ignored them as not our problem and still been in exactly the same boat as today, the people who attacked the US on 9/11 were Saudi extremists, not Afghan militia.Propose a better solution. Let the taliban build up there? Well, that's just dandy. Then the war will be in our back yards. No thank you.
If you absolutely insist something had to be done because al-qaeda were training on the Afghan side of a nebulous border as well as the Pakistani side, then there were all manner of diplomatic, economic, legal and semi-legal efforts that could have been tried first that weren't. They could have tried paying the damn Taliban leaders to turn over Bin laden, threatening them, assassinating them or assassinating him. If the Taliban wouldn't be seen talking directly to the US they could have tried getting more moderate Islamic countries to act as a go between or routes of funneling aid or money into Afghanistan in return for assistance against Bin Laden.
If all of that failed then they could have gone back on the military option, but done it full scale and not arsing around half-invading the place. Proper manpower, American governor, American police, American TV, American schools, American business investment, then transition to democracy when the first or second American educated, English speaking generation of Afghan adults is in place. Sure it would have taken massive investment, massive willpower and probably 30 or so years to do, but it will have taken massive investment and 15 years just to end up back where they started now.
America is currently torn between the massive spending and military commitment of an Empire, the desire to expand it's influence and a total lack of the will required to maintain one, another factor which may exhaust it.
Sorry, Moe. I'll stop quoting unnecessarily.
Space
You make a good point about the spin-off technologies. I'd forgotten about those. And you're probably right saying it's got its up-sides - and space is a wonderful thing to dream about. In small leaps and bounds like we're trying for these days (being a global, private and public endeavor), I believe in it, but as a constant endeavor of a single government I think it's way too much for the return.
That's what I was trying to get at. The NASA and the US alone just couldn't sustain it. I don't see that as a failure of the US government. I see many others failings in Uncle Sam but not that. They opened a world of opportunity and people are slowly jumping on the band wagon, which is probably the best thing we could have for space. I wouldn't want it to be a US gov only undertaking.
Taliban / Afghanistan
It's not the taliban I'm worried about, it's the base of power and relationship they can build if unchecked, a safe haven for all like-minded extremists of whatever cause they wish to support. I see the operation down there much like a harassing strategy in a RTS. It's putting on pressure, keeping them occupied, always on the move, making them think twice when they stay around anywhere too long. Basically, I believe it amounts to: keep them running in circles and focused on their local issues and they won't have time to plan anything bigger. It's not largely effective in the way it's portrayed outwardly (abolish terrorism) and I doubt the effects can be quantified. But we're seeing results already, branching off, extremists seeking safe havens elsewhere. In that regard, I'd call it a success. Politically, it's a nightmare. In that I agree wholeheartedly.
@Moe: Agreed, about local intervention. I've two reservation to that though: not certain the locals would act with western (read: US) interests in mind and I'm (perhaps unjustly) biased towards doubting they'll actually do anything as long as it isn't on their own territory. I'll point historically to the Iran / Iraq war where ships were being sunk left and right, shipping interrupted all over and, well, no one really did a thing. More recently, Turkey and Syria, while Turkey looks on with its borders closed tight and lets its neighbor destroy itself. Doesn't spark my confidence in timely local intervention.
@Jonny: I'm fairly certain they tried assassination and still do. The problem is, you kill one leader, 10 more crop up. Individual deaths isn't what they're after. It's not the goal of the operation and never has been. Stuff like bin laden are just propaganda your average person can relate to (yay! we got the bad guy!). As for turning Afghanistan into a US colony, I'm not entirely certain that would go any better than any other colonization. What they're doing (or trying to do) is build up Afghanistan so it can stand on its own as a supporter of the US - not tear it down and replace it. Granted, it isn't working very well, but it's probably the more sustainable approach than subjecting the population.
Finally, I'd like to say I'm not a blind supporter of the US government or it's policy. I believe most of it is (excuse my french) fucked up. On the other side, I look at the US and see many parallels to what's going on in many other places across the world. Thus, I have a hard time believing the US is completely screwed and doomed. I'm more inclined to believe the US will change dramatically over the coming century. The question is only: will that be good for the rest of the world?
#113
Re: Space:
The US definitely isn't the only player here, and you're right in saying that it shouldn't be solely them spending all those dollars paving the way for private enterprises. Having said that, the US has no more manned space delivery capability, so the US is now paying Russia to send up Astronauts - a price tag which all of a sudden doubled if memory serves as soon as the last shuttle retired. I'm not arguing for an unprecedented and expansion of the space program, but would it really be so horrible if we doubled the budget there? Hell, fold in private companies if you want, have part of NASA funding go to public-private partnerships. What I'm trying to say is that it's not that expensive, and that we should be careful to dismiss this as a boondoggle that we can only afford in times of prosperity.
Taliban/Afghanistan:
Local players will of course act with their own interests in mind, first and foremost. And those may not necessarily completely align with US interests. Then again, does what we have down there right now, a situation we arrived at after losing stupendous amounts of time, energy, resources, money and not to mention human lives, constitute aligning completely with US interests? The UAE and Qatar are pretty pro-western. They know where their money is coming from, and pissing off the US and Europe is very, very bad for business. And like it or not, these guys are the rising stars in that area (and given their ridiculous amounts of money and investments worldwide, they are very much global players), and I would rather they don't hate us. I would have preferred an option where we work with them from the get-go, and letting them have a lot of input, because after all this is their backyard.
As for Turkey and Syria, while it is nice to imagine that US foreign intervention is motivated by humanitarian reasons, it's also pretty unrealistic. We sat by, are sitting by, while incredible atrocities are being committed on a large scale. Darfur comes to mind here. So I wouldn't necessarily accept Turkey's refusal to do something about Syria as a counter-argument, because we've done the same in the past.
It wasn't my intention to suggest that it be a colony, my fault for mixing topics and talking about Empire. I was suggesting that they do exactly as you say, but properly. After 30 years or so of US governance, US education, busines, infrastructure spending and lifestyle you'd have had a literate, educated, western exposed populace used to relative peace and prosperity. Then you could have slowly transitioned into a fully independent democratic nation. Even if they still hated the US, they'd be literate, educated and used to the benefits of peace, which is more than Afghanistan is now.As for turning Afghanistan into a US colony, I'm not entirely certain that would go any better than any other colonization. What they're doing (or trying to do) is build up Afghanistan so it can stand on its own as a supporter of the US - not tear it down and replace it. Granted, it isn't working very well, but it's probably the more sustainable approach than subjecting the population.
As it stands so far, they're just spinning their wheels in the mud, waffling about democracy and freedom as though it will magically take root in a country with a thousand years of tribal, religious and patriarchal rule behind it without major enforced cultural change.
As regards to space, America was fully behind the idea that they dominate the space race and nobody else. Britain for one had an advanced space program in the fifties and sixties, which was shut down when the US offered to share NASA, in effect, and then didn't. America might not have been able to sustain it alone, but they were the sole reason that they were sustaining it alone.
Moe:
Another good point about manned space capability. Russia is probably still losing more than they gain for offering the service though. I'm fairly certain the back-out of the shuttle program was ultimately a wise decision. Still, hmm, I'm very divided on when space exploration is worth the investment. Perhaps the most ideal solution is to go completely private (which appears to be the way we're going). That way, the government doesn't have to tally investment based on overall prosperity levels. On the other hand, investors will have to take the risk. I'm not certain we have enough experience with space to judge which option is better.
On UAE and Quatar, regarding cooperation in mutual interests. I've no idea what the political climate looks like around those parts but I get the feeling both sides aren't really interested in cooperation. (disclaimer: this is my personal speculation) The US doesn't want to have to run every decision past the Oil states. They feel dependent enough. And the Oil states don't want to invest directly in an armed conflict unless they really have to. Seeing how much it drains the US, that's probably a wise decision. Honestly, I think that's politics and personal interests screwing over the most rational solution.
Jonny:
Sorry, misunderstood what you were saying. I'm now stuck wondering if there's a way to set up such governance without giving the locals the idea you're marching in to conquer. I sort of get the feeling that's the general opinion you foster no matter how you intervene. Probably would have been a lot better to state that goal clearly from the outset. On the other hand, the international community would be head over heels about western imperialism and we'd be back to square one. This might just be one of those hopeless situations where there's X number of options which all result in being negative somehow. Which puts me back to wondering if I was right saying intervention is better than none. I honestly don't know. Maybe I'm thinking too far.
I wasn't familiar with the British space program, thanks for sharing. And, now you mention it, I've heard about NASA not letting in competition before. That does count among the less intelligent decisions made by the US.
#116
Oh don't get me wrong, the shuttle had to be retired. It was old and never that great a vehicle to begin with, but there are many options available to replace it rather than just axing the program completely. Hell, some proposals would have incorporated existing shuttle launch vehicle parts into a new delivery system.
Ultimately this will have to be a private enterprise, yes. But we're not there yet. I mean private companies are just barely making it to LEO, a trip to Mars is completely out of the question. There is no profit to be made probably within the lifetime of the CEOs running those companies. But unless someone keeps going there we'll never develop the technology to do this at a resource cost that isn't prohibitively high. Right now it's so high that even if we had millions of nuggets of gold just sitting on the surface of Mars, it would still be so expensive to fly out and get them that there would be no profit in this enterprise. But we need to go out there, eventually. For cultural reasons, to foster a generation that wants to go into STEM fields, to keep our innovative edge - I think we can agree that the US can't survive as a low-tech manufacturing nation - and at some point it becomes a survival of the species issue, since we are keeping literally all of our eggs in one basket right now.
What makes you say that the Gulf states aren't interested in cooperation? I'm just curious what you're basing that one. Note that there are massive cultural differences between say the Saudis and Jordan, or Qatar, or the UAE. The latter two have bought large amounts of top of the line military hardware; Qatar is currently attempting to buy 200 main battle tanks from Germany. More telling yet is the recent acquisition of the brand-new THAAD missile defense system by the UAE. This system is designed to neutralize a ballistic missile threat and isn't good for much else. They're not buying that to defend against rebels, this is insurance against local powers (like Iran) lobbing nukes. If they were buddy-buddy with the regional nutjobs I'm sure they could find a better use for 3.5 billion dollars.
The US shouldn't have to run every decision past the gulf states, but again, this is their territory. If the US started bombing Poland for whatever reasons, you'll bet that the Germans would want to have a say in what happens right next to them. In a similar vein, if you're going to deploy massive amounts of troops and equipment and start shooting in the Gulf region, it would make a lot of sense to coordinate with regional partners, especially those who have US military bases that can be used as staging and support areas.
The states of the GCC probably have no interest in a massive, sustained military presence on foreign soil, but they're much closer culturally and can influence local events through both military action and through redirecting incredible amounts of money. And if you look at what they did in Egypt and more importantly Libya, you'll see just how much influence they can exert.
I remember looking at some of the shuttle alternative proposals. Makes me wonder if anything else besides funding issues motivated the decision to ditch it all. Anyways, I'll be interested to see how the future space industry plays out. Sadly, as you say, we'll probably not see the fruit of any efforts in that direction.
We definitely agree on low-tech manufacturing not being viable. And I don't see the US falling off the high-tech stage anytime soon (10-30 years, maybe?) either. Like you say, they have to keep an edge. I'd say technology and innovation is probably one of the few things the US system does right. The rest of the world is catching up or already overtaking but America still has a solid base and the ability to keep their edge. If no one foolishly squanders it, that is.
About the Arab cooperation, I'm basing my uninformed opinion on observation of past oil state behavior. There are large differences, as you point out, but I just haven't seen the engagement coming from them except when it involves personal gain. I'm not saying they are buddies with the crazies, I'm just saying their interests are in their own states and their profits. As long as those aren't affected, they won't become any more active than they have. Goes without saying that most (all? I'm tempted to say all) nations act that way. I just doubt the UAE and Quatar - or anyone else in the region - would actively begin any campaign against extremists or rebels outside their borders unless they have no alternative (which they might have to in the near future). Thus far, the west has gladly stepped in on cross-border and extremist issues.
To expand on that: Just read up a little on GCC involvement, wasn't aware of the specifics. They do indeed seem to have the will to put their weight behind their interest during the recent unrest. I'm not entirely certain what the intention behind it is but I hope we can take it at face value and conclude they're generally interested in co-operation and regional stability. I have a few lurking doubts on the coalition's long-term stability for historic reasons but they seem to have more cohesion than the peninsula did last century. If it stays that way, I'd say leaving local issues to the locals should be considered a viable solution. Though, I'd be loathe to see the most promising nations in the region get stuck in the same quagmire the US is in these days. Hopefully they'll whip up some ingenious long term solution to extremist influences that makes the US efforts look amateurish. Short of that, they have a lot more to risk (driving workers away and crashing the whole local economy being the prime one) than the US does.
AFAIK there is coordination for all operations the US and other western nations conduct in the region but only on a logistical level. I can't speak as to why as I'm not knowledgeable enough but I believe it's because cooperation on a military level is too complex, language and culture being the prime issues, political interests and costs being at least two others. It's really sort of a backwards policy from all involved and I hope it changes soon. All the 'don't step on our fingers, we won't step on yours' politics around the Gulf are a wonderful set-up for future complications as power shifts around the globe (assuming it does during the coming century).
#118
I would say that the solid base isn't that solid anymore, because it's pretty dependent on good education. And since we apparently need to have a national discussion over whether we should teach creationism in science class I'm not so sure that we're doing a good job raising a scientifically literate and research-minded generation here.
By the way, NASA can award contracts to private companies, and in fact just did so for a total of $900 million to Boeing and Space-X. So giving more money to NASA also means more money making its way into the private sector. And the nice thing is, not a whole lot of the manufacturing and other jobs that this creates can be outsourced and moved off-shore, because nobody else has the know-how. In other words, this will create jobs here in the US.
Again, I'm sure the GCC states all have their own agendas, but these do overlap with western interests as far as stability is concerned. When Iran threatens to mine and blockade the strait of Hormuz, the GCC states are not amused at all, because that's where their oil needs to move through. Looking into the future beyond oil, because at some point those wells will dry up, the UAE states are shifting their economy to become a prime tourism location as well as the middle eastern banking center. They each pursue different strategies; for example Dubai is going for the tallest building, the nicest hotel and crazy architecture such as the artificial palm tree islands, while Abu Dhabi for instance is going for cultural (Guggenheim museum), sports (Ferrari World, formula 1 racing) and sustainability (Masdar City). These things, much like oil export, require regional stability to attract foreign investors, tourists and businesspeople, because few people want to vacation or do business right next to a war zone.
#119
@Moe: I know you weren't addressing your posts to me, but....
I'm not against ramping up NASA as long as it's balanced out with cuts in another area. It's a miniscule part of the budget alone, but if you were to aggregate all the 'small extras' that would be in our federal budget if there were no forces trying to constrain its size, you'd end up with an enormous level of expenditure in the end.
And even setting aside the whole "size of government" issue, it's incredibly important that costs remain transparent. The biggest problem with public action is that no-one takes responsibility for the cost of doing XYZ. The costs aren't transparent which is why Congressman Joe Blow can waste 3 million dollars on porkbarrel and suffer literally no consequence. People are far less resourceful and far more wasteful when there's no incentive forcing them to keep their costs under control.
So it's not that NASA shouldn't be bigger, just that as long as every increment to the size of NASA has a transparent negative effect somewhere else, then I'm happy.
I understand how incredibly frustrating it is as a scientist not having funding for the projects you know would revolutionize the world. But the hash reality is that for every dollar you have to spend, you have 10 projects that could potentially revolutionize the world. The ultimate point is not that we shouldn't fund science, simply that it must be subject to a strict and merciless mechanism to determine where the money goes and where it doesn't go, because there's an opportunity cost to all of this.
In other words, instead of just adding on more to our ever growing government, why not take a sliver of a percent from SS, D&D and Medicaid and dedicate that to NASA?
Last edited by roflmao; 3rd Aug 12 at 3:06 PM.
You really want to take away money from social security O_o. Why?
No qaurter back men, only forward or we will hold this line forever!!!
[IMG][/IMG]
Row Row Row Fight the Powha
#121
Heh, not really though. This sort of discretionary spending makes up a minuscule amount of the federal budget relative to defense, health care and welfare, and it is essentially uncapped because there's little political will to contain it except during budget crises. A far better poster child for this is defense spending, which hoovers up money and shits out failed programs.but if you were to aggregate all the 'small extras' that would be in our federal budget if there were no forces trying to constrain its size, you'd end up with an enormous level of expenditure in the end.
I understand that you're taking an ideal position where things balance, but in real politics land, what actually happens is they shut down a small program for kids while boosting defense spending by $100 billion.
#122
I think the current reality is more of one where the new small program for kids and boost in defense spending are put on a magical political machine called Debt that farts out whatever you want for "free." It's a real life fairyland for politicians.
But, kind of more to your point, yes: I don't understand the obsession Republicans have with blowing shit up half across the world and I don't understand why even mentioning SS, which is on the path to becoming a train wreck because of the magical political machine mentioned above, is anathema to Democrats.
The bottom line is that people want shit and don't want to pay for it, which is hardly surprising.
(private debt is also kind of a big issue)
#123
Re budget: bear in mind that the United States budget for 2012 is now being predicted at a $1.2 TRILLION deficit for this year (source: http://www.dailyforex.com/forex-fund...-Deficit/13622), which with 312 million people means that the country is overspending by about $3800 for every man, woman, and child. If you count tax-reporting citizens only, google sez roughly 140 million tax filers, which makes the deficit this year come in at $8500 extra per tax filer if that estimate stay accurate.
Out of control spending and a lack of fiscal reality in government is one of the core inspirations for me creating this thread.
I'd think a smart country would be looking anywhere it could to reduce budgetary spending, even the "miniscule" stuff.
--------------------
Grass-roots Republicans love to blow overseas shit up because it shows murkin guns are superior and you'd better not come over here and fuck wif our lifestyle praise Jesus. Ayup we showed them. (with apologies. I miss yanking Vaarok's chain.)
#124
Fiscal reality is that rates keep dipping into the negatives for government borrowing. Or to put it another way, people will pay the government for the right to have the government borrow from them. US federal deficit is also decreasing in percentage terms year to year, following the big crisis spike.Out of control spending and a lack of fiscal reality in government is one of the core inspirations for me creating this thread.
which is happening even despite the horribly dysfunctional legislature.
Remember: you're a blogger. Pretense is your co-pilot.
Here is still another reminder:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
You cannot argue over that, or what is going to happen.
It's simple, overspending as a person, or as a nation, it will eventually bite you on the bum-bum.
The main figure here to watch is the US UNFUNDED LIABILITIES:
120,009,730,999,000 dollars.
I still find it scary.
Last edited by Liljagare; 4th Aug 12 at 6:23 PM.
#126
This is really, really dangerous for the US government.Or to put it another way, people will pay the government for the right to have the government borrow from them.
Right now, they can borrow for free or even at a profit in inflation terms. So, of course, they borrow. Why not? Free money, right?
Well, no. They still have to pay back the principal eventually. And if there is an interest rate spike, all the sudden rolling that debt over becomes a huge problem which destroys a government's finances.
Right now, the government is saying, "Hey let's borrow to the hilt right up until we can't anymore, at which point we'll just ????? and come up with the money to keep rolling debt over. Don't worry about our 0% track record at ever doing this. Oh, and don't worry, if it ever gets really bad we'll just inflate our way out of it and totally screw over anyone who saves money."
It's a game of chicken, except with every step forward we're making it harder and harder to stop playing the game.
@mololu:
Index page:
http://www.nss.org/settlement/Coloni...ace/index.html
I have somewhere in my collection the original print book. That has next to nearly every sentence a reference number pointing to a huge reference section in the back where every claim is sourced. Sadly for some reason, (probably legal like the photo's), that isn't reproduced here. So if you want their sources track a copy down.
Obviously with inflation and a littlie bit of science marches on there's going to be the odd issue. But the basic premises of A) there being a crapton of energy freely available from the sun up there, and B) it being a lot cheaper to ship raw materials from the moon and refine it in orbit than ship refined stuff up from on earth. Are pretty much indisputable. When NASA started recently looking at a moon base again they worked out it would be cheaper to resupply the ISS and other LEO assets with fuel derived from lunar ice than to ship it up from earth. (Someone linked a document about it ages back here on the forums).
Hell for me the section on farming is almost more interesting than everything else. The potential ease of solving world hunger is alluring to say the least.
The problem of world hunger isn't simply tied to a shortage of capacity to make food. A number of the places with mass starvings are regularly sent aid by the US and pretty much the rest of the first world. Unfortunately most of that food doesn't get to the people though. It is either taken by corrupt governments or local warlords and gangs. Even if the food were free and would magically pop out of thin air there would still be the considerable cost of delivery.
The best thing we can do to decrease world hunger at this point is develop more ways for people to feed themselves and spread those ways to the needed areas.
#129
WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAYWell, no. They still have to pay back the principal eventually. And if there is an interest rate spike, all the sudden rolling that debt over becomes a huge problem which destroys a government's finances.
Free trade destroyed subsistence farming. True fact.The best thing we can do to decrease world hunger at this point is develop more ways for people to feed themselves and spread those ways to the needed areas.
Also, too, ironically: much 'food aid' is just another subsidy for agricorps.... and it ends up fucking local agriculture... making them dependent on food aid.
Basically we have to fix a problem we created. D'oh!
Last edited by TheDeadlyShoe; 3rd Aug 12 at 9:54 PM.
#130
What?
Carl: Cool! Have to give that a read. Sounds really interesting.
About debt, the stupidity of runaway US government spending is undeniably a catastrophy. No inclination to stop the money being poured into black holes. But I also see it in many other places (Europe *cough*) in the world, not just the US, and all part of fairly recent developments.
Back to my Switzerland example: The Swiss government is nowhere near the financial failure the US is. Still, Switzerland being a rich social state with a healthy budget and all, they managed to cut school funding to a level where High Schools couldn't afford course books for every student or even enough copier paper - but ofc. the military thinks this is the best time to go off and replace their F18 fleet with Saab Gripens, a fleet which has never even been used except for flying around in circles for three to four minutes I might add. Well, the Swiss public managed to more or less bash the idea back out of their heads (will likely be put to common vote if the military presses for it but we still don't have enough course books).
Now, that isn't exactly in the same ballpark of US budget failure scale of stupid. However, Swiss mis-spending is running in that direction pretty damn fast. For a country which, compared to the US, is a shining example of how to run a government, that is not a very good sign. As a result of my experience living in Switzerland, I have no faith in even the most admirable governments doing anything right of their own accord, not the US, not the Swiss, not the Eurozone, not anyone. So, while I might hope a smart US government would try to cut costs everywhere to get their debt under control ASAP, I'm convinced such a smart government doesn't exist anywhere.
Part of the problem, I believe, is that no matter where you pull the money from someone will complain. Pull it from schools, parents feel cheated. Pull it from research, scientists feel cheated. Pull it from the army, soldiers feel cheated. Pull it from SS, people reliant on the services feel cheated. Pull it out of roads, everyone with a car feels cheated and so on. On the other hand you also have powerful individuals and vocal groups pushing one way or another and a theoretical spending plan which is saying something else entirely. All comes down to government spending is stuck between one or another form of dissatisfaction - and the US is historically bad at handling dissatisfaction. Why I say all that: from where I'm standing, it almost seems as i the US gov is too afraid to actually DO anything about the budget holes for fear of pissing someone off.
About food aid, the problem has been known for half a century and we're still doing it wrong on a massive scale. Probably because throwing money we don't have at something simple is easier than spending time to do it right. Makes me wonder if we'll ever get our collective heads out of the sand on that.
Food aid is like any other sort of intervention, it needs to either be done right or not at all. Unfortunately western politicians have always sat firmly in the middle between the two, terrified both of the "something must be done!" brigade and of the "bloody government spending our money on foreigners" lot*. So instead of not interfering and letting millions of people die until the population is sustainable for the area, as would naturally happen, or getting stuck in and really trying to stabilise the countries and build their farming infrastructure they sit in the middle and send food aid. Destroying what local farming there is (who buys food when foreigners give it out for free?) and ensuring that every generation swells the numbers of people dependent entirely on international food aid.About food aid, the problem has been known for half a century and we're still doing it wrong on a massive scale. Probably because throwing money we don't have at something simple is easier than spending time to do it right. Makes me wonder if we'll ever get our collective heads out of the sand on that.
What happens if we ever can't continue to send food aid to the areas we've hooked on it? Chaos probably, along with starvation on a biblical scale, all because we can't not interfere or do the hard work that's necessary when we do, so we sit in the middle and palm the problem off to future generations.
*Also of the "Western Imperialism!!! Neo-colonialism!!!" cry
*edit*
sorry, missed this earlier.
Utter transparency, I'd imagine. Total honesty with your goals, total transparency with what you're doing, be as scrupulously fair as possible and have the fortitude to ignore any "OMG Colonialism!!" whining unless it's coming from the people you're trying to help. You'd probably still get loads of complaints and problems to start with until you'd proved you're trustworthy and aren't there empire building and exploiting, so it'd definitely be a hard road. Unfortunately I doubt any current government has the integrity, commitment and long term viewpoint to get anywhere close to it.I'm now stuck wondering if there's a way to set up such governance without giving the locals the idea you're marching in to conquer.
Last edited by Jonny; 4th Aug 12 at 2:38 PM.
I think, Jonny, to add to that there needs to be a focus on helping the country you are trying to help rather than lining the pockets of your own country's billion dollar companies.
For instance, if you are going to be building schools in Iraq, build them through local builders with supplies from local businesses and local experts. If the locals don't have the right skills, teach them.
If you just go in and nobody local is involved, then you are taking over. But if you involve the locals, you are helping them.
mololu: Your arguments continue to trace back to "but the rest of the world does that too!" which is, I'm sure you know, not a good argument.
If the US has the same problems as the rest of the world (albeit on a larger scale), then that is simply another indication that there is something rotten in the US. They were in a better position than absolutely everyone else. If they are now on the same level (just worse because of the bigger scale) as everyone else... that means that they failed rather miserably somewhere along the way. That they are slipping behind other countries means that currently they aren't doing well.
At the least, the very least, the US has stagnated. It's now slumming with the countries it used to inspire awe in. Some of those countries are actually doing better than the US. Many of those countries now just laugh at the shit the US does. It has become an international joke. The last few presidents of the United States of America - once the greatest (both self-proclaimed and internationally acknowledged) nation on Earth - have been mocked and generally taken as jokes. Obama has just barely managed to stem that tide by - just barely - not being generally ridiculous.
International opinion has dropped, and continues to drop with every international (And even some national) policy the US shits out.
There has been no upward or forward momentum in the US for a very, very long time.
It doesn't matter whether that's good for the rest of the world or not. That's not what this is about. This thread is asking if the US is falling.
I'd like to say it isn't. The US still has a lot to offer the world. But in order to say it isn't falling, one has to imply that there is nowhere further to fall. Rock bottom. But that's not true because there are still stupid things out there for the US to do, and it's still hanging on in what seems like a desperate attempt to cause as much stupidity as possible before it drops another rung down the ladder.
Are we watching the last days? Uncertain.
Are we watching the fall? Highly likely.
Can the US stop such a fall? Easily possible, but unlikely due to a number of factors to do with politics (a two party system is not about positive choice, but rather about negative choice) education, world view (American) and acknowledgement that there is a problem - It is, after all... the first step.
It takes a lot of argument
to convince most people
that they are lying.
#134
Because national debt control basically equates as a dip in quality of life for the nation. Murkins have grown up for a few generations (skewed perspective of silly baby boomers) thinknig that murika has everything, it is their God given right to have super sized gulpees and wide screen TV's (praise jesus).
It also effects things we regard as essential to the country. Education is important for the future of the country, social security is important to protect people who can't protect themselves, roads an infrastructure are important.
TBH the US could probably afford to cut back on it;s defence spending but then that'd leave the world to China, Russia, Irans, North Koreas and every other tin-pot country's whims.
The US bit hard into the apple of global police force, and why it could be argued that the US could live with a return to pseudo-isolationism, being unable to protect its foreign interests wouldn't exactly help the US economy.
As for foreign aid, I think what aid is given should be entirely based on building up the struggling country in question, l agree with the notion that aid should be about building up local farmers, local economy, local infrastructure and not as a half-assed alien economy, and yes even accepting when a population is unsustainable for it's development level.
This won't change the attitudes of politicians who feel beheld to the 'gotta do somthin!' crowd who seem to become instant experts on what's right for the third world after a couple of ads with cute sad looking hungry African kids, and NGO's who have their own agendas. I don't imagine many NGO's will go quietly if the UN told them that their bread and butter activities are no longer required in any given country because the world has decided to try something a bit more realistic.
But yeah, as is foreign aid is just a poison being pumped into weak and sick systems and ensuring little to no improvement.
@Loco: Yes, I'm aware 'everyone else is too' is a horrible argument, but that's not what I'm trying to get back at. Maybe I'm being stubbornly uncommunicative. I'm trying to say: don't look at the US out of context, look at the rest of the world too. This thread is very fixed on only the US failing (which I agree is an issue by the way) and I think that fixation is a mistake. Looking at a single country's perceived gain or failure out of context is dangerous. It leads us to believe the US used to be a perfect country and, suddenly, isn't. I'd argue it never was great, simply a lucky winner of the WW2 lottery. And it tried to use that lead (quite effectively, I might add, for over 40 years). But, at the end, the government never was anything but a babysitter for a huge market with a military budget and strong propaganda machine. Two of those don't exist anymore, leaving the US rather bare-bones. People saw some (maybe all?) of those flaws 40 years ago, people who complained and the government rolled on, hoping the next generations would forget. It worked. Sort of. Until now. So, all this perceived greatness of the most acknowledged country on earth, I'd put that down to misinformation. It may have been a little better in the past decades but it never achieved the greatness we'd like to believe.
Or maybe we have to agree to disagree on that. At least we agree the US is failing.
@Nuri: I assume we agree life quality will dip regardless which option the gov takes on debt (but ofc. no one wants to actually say that to the murkins). Makes me wonder how (or rather: if) the US will knock itself out of that conundrum. Civil unrest seems to be unavoidable at this point, no matter which option the gov takes or refuses to take.
#136
Excellent post, LoCo. For the many non-US citizens like myself, it's hard not to base our judgement of the US's longevity by assessing it from how it does in the rest of the world. The thread is about whether the US will fail. A key question is "what does 'failure' mean?".
I'll apply the definition: "pervasive loss of any one of economic, military, scientific, or social power, to the point where the median (NOT AVERAGE) quality of life for its citizens declines substantially year over year". (Suggestions for change are welcome).
I think we can all agree that the scenario where the US is conquered is an unlikely one.
Gotta call you on self-contradiction there though. It's not easy and never will be. The political process creates tremendous inertia. And as the rich-vs-poor gap continues to widen, the level of empowerment of sufficient critical mass of those who truly do desire true change will continue to decline as more selfish billionaires like Romney evolve and become part of, if not core to, the American political process.
I really don't get you guys.
There is a country on the planet that has more outstanding promised debt and liabilities, more than what is fundable on the markets on the *planet*.
Nobody even gets a minor hiccup over that?
There isn't enough funding on the *planet*, to fix the situation that USA has gotten itself into, this is a first, and something completely new, it hasn't happened before..
We are now living with a imagined funding, on a real debt.
Hey the rating agencies are saying everything is fine and still give the USA a Tripple A and they have never been wrong bef.... oh well scrap that.
Bottom line of this whole topic is that the world is moving away from one single country "ruling" the planet to a plural system where countries of the area where "trouble" arises are more important. The West (and the US more than most other countries) has lived for quite a while above what they could afford, now a regulation will take place, this is nothing bad but something we all have to start living with.
"Ammon, your wrath is indeed fearful, but Scoia... he devours your soul." - Meatkin
23:01 - Officer MORE SEXY: well you can never see enough mangina I suppose :P
23:01 - Officer Sexy: That's true, it's something you need to experience more than once to fully appreciate
mololu: The difference, I think, between our positions is that you believe that the US used its 'lead' well for 40 years - I believe the US had a 40 year lead and did nothing with it which is why the other countries were able to catch up.
Retroboy: I agree. I meant that it would be easy if not for the politics and such. If rationality were employed instead of politics and greed it would be relatively easy to fix things. But that's not going to happen so it's 'unlikely'.
LoCo: I belive you are right on our difference. I'll leave it at that and agree to disagree until another day.
scoiatollo: I tend to agree on your assessment but have to wonder how well that system will last in today's day and age, where many countries can't help themselves and their own people, much less neighbors. I've been trying to speculate on where we're going in terms of power distribution and I'm just not sure yet. Part of me believes, as you suggest, the current trend of nation leagues based on region will take a firm hold. The other half fears those agreements will crack too soon and spill out nations who fend only for themselves.
Retroboy: I like the definition. It still isn't a solid metric but it sums up the major points of discussion nicely. On the topic of the US being conquered, I agree it's very unlikely. However, a takeover or coup by some disgruntled people/party could be a realistic outcome if political insanity continues. That's a scenario I wouldn't have even considered a few years ago. Now, I'm not so sure anymore.
Liljagare: Not only that, but the US dollar should be suffering massive inflation which should be placing the US in a terrible position. Because of financial trouble in Europe (and potentially in other places too), it's not. The end result is a very odd shrinking of the US economy in the sense that it isn't actually falling much at all while it should be taking a big dip.
Can't be worse than now if you ask me. Currently we have the US dictating their view of how we should handle things, in the future we have other countries with other interests, it's all a question of the perspective. I doubt that we'll see more conflicts than now and honestly dealing with issues on a local level has it's advantages.
What would be brilliant in this future would be if we'd get rid of those Veto votes in the UN and adopt a full democratic system, but that won't be happening soon (or even ever at all).
#142
Sure it could, it could be a lot worse. There could be global war (US Armed Forces are a major stabilizing factor), or a dictator like in Russia or China could be "dictating there view". The US is far from an optimal world leader, but there are a lot worse things out there.Can't be worse than now if you ask me.
(Previously, and still occasionally zbobet2012)
#143
Yes, it's different.
If you ask me, the biggest problem with U.S. foreign policy is not one of evil intentions. Dick Cheney is quite the hawk but as a person he's donated the vast majority of his income to charity and has adopted who-knows-how-many children, so he's hardly a black evil monster.
The bigger problem with U.S. foreign policy is that the U.S. sets out with the objective to control forces that are completely out of its control. No single institution has the power to control nations across the world with nothing more than brute force, so the result of a naive attempt to do so is human tragedy and unnecessary destruction.
It's a problem of what the CIA calls "blowback," or unintended consequences if you want to put it that way.
While the end result of U.S. foreign policy might look similar to a megalomaniac dictator, the difference between evil intentions and simple incompetence is significant and should not be brushed over. The U.S. has far far more of the latter than the former.
#144
Why should anyone, anywhere, in the history of forever give a shit about the intentions? The result is what matters.
e: \/\/\/\/ Well, okay, yes that's true. I was thinking about state actors, but I guess that's true.
Last edited by Starblade; 6th Aug 12 at 12:11 PM.
My Interceptor is better than your Interceptor.
#145
Starblade: Intent matters. It's the difference between murder and manslaughter, for example.
Why should there be a global war bonnet? I mean us German speaking Europeans certainly don't feel like invading right now and we started the last 2. As for China or Russia dictating their view, so what? It's not like ANYONE is doing anything against the crimes against humans that are committed in these countries right now. Also shall I remind you of what the US backed up in the past and is backing up right now? It's just a matter of perspective, seriously. Once the US steps down from it's ruling position those perspectives will change automatically.
#147
>_>Hey the rating agencies are saying everything is fine and still give the USA a Tripple A and they have never been wrong bef.... oh well scrap that.
US debt is extremely in demand, and when S&P lowered US treasury bond ratings a while back it had no meaningful impact. In any case, any nation with monetary sovereignty (such as the US) can be definition never fail to pay its debts. The only question really is inflation. Sooo the ratings agencies are kind of useless for this sort of thing. And right now, The Market does not expect nor is it seeing significant inflation.
One persons' debt is another persons' asset. That's why debt is meaningless when looking at the overall economy if you do not place it in context, i.e. interest payments relative to income, assets etc. Nor are current US debt levels particularly humongous or unprecedented when compared to the size of the economy. The (probable) structural deficit is a problem, but most of it would go away by ending the bush tax cuts. The budget was in surplus not too long ago.There is a country on the planet that has more outstanding promised debt and liabilities, more than what is fundable on the markets on the *planet*.
Nobody even gets a minor hiccup over that?
Now, as for liabilities, they're meaningless. And comparing them to assets - as usdebtclock.org does - is foolish. At any rate, 'unfunded liabilities' usually means 'theoretically possible projected deficit spending over the next 75 years'. 75 years ago was 1937. Think about that
I guess your post just seems noticably...disconnected? The notion that borrowing is essentially free right now does not exist in the current political discourse, and certainly government policy is not based on it.What?
And I mean... interest rates on government debt are fixed. At least for most debt. So you can only run into trouble with newly issued debt...but the only way interest rates are going to start rising again is if employment recovers. Which is to say, if the economy recovers, meaning tax receipts will be way up.
And... About that inflation.. http://www.clevelandfed.org/research...ions/index.cfm
Yeah.
I'm curious what you mean by rationality. Do you know why politics exists? Because people disagree on what is rational, and what should be prioritized!Retroboy: I agree. I meant that it would be easy if not for the politics and such. If rationality were employed instead of politics and greed it would be relatively easy to fix things. But that's not going to happen so it's 'unlikely'.
#148
what?!In any case, any nation with monetary sovereignty (such as the US) can be definition never fail to pay its debts.
#149
Applying the falling empire analogy to the US is something that's been done before, and a lot more eloquently than I could.
In 2004 Professor Niall Ferguson published the book 'Colossus'. It's a decent read if you're into that type of thing.
TheDeadlyShoe: People can disagree all they like about what rational is. It doesn't change the definition of the word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality
Politics doesn't exist "because people disagree on what is rational, and what should be prioritized!" This sounds suspiciously like a joke, and its appreciation is limited since this is an attempt at serious discourse.
I think you're going to have to back all of that stuff up. The argument could very easily be made that the US Armed Forces are actually a major destabilizing factor. Proof that Russia actually has a dictator would be nice (Instead of insipid American propaganda) proof that there would be another global war, proof that China would be the same if America was different. (I'd love to see the proof of that...)
The US has instigated a shit ton of unrest. If we treat the US Armed Forces as a separate entity, but still connected to the US, then you have, at best, one part of the US which is providing instability and one that is providing stability which, - again - at best, evens things out. (Though not for the people who were caught up in the destabilization in the first place, but who cares about those people... they aren't American)
Every time I see people spouting about how the American forces are stabilizing this or that region, I wonder who destabilized it in the first place. Many, many times it comes right back to the US. You can not, can NOT, claim they are doing good if most of the time they are just ineffectually attempting to clean up their own mess.
Oh, and the people in the US might believe that Russia is still some big evil man-eating bear, but there is a growing (large) number of people outside the US who are starting to wonder just how much of the US propaganda is true, and are just seeing the US shitting on some bear that's just trying to keep its own territory. Poland is an excellent example of this. The US stirring up shit, spending millions of dollars and knowing that its only going to piss Russia off and not protect them from their stated fears.
And why the aggression towards Russia? Because the Americans bought into their own propaganda back during the Cold War and the people in charge now have been living under the threat of an imminent commie Russian invasion drilled into them from childhood. The really sick thing is that the Russians were never going to invade. The Russians didn't drill that fear so deep into American hearts. The Americans scared themselves shitless over something that was never going to happen, they did it to themselves. Just like they are drilling the fear of phantom terrorists into themselves now.
And the result is clear. The second anyone in the US hears the word "Russia", they have swift reactions ranging from fear to anger to hate. It doesn't matter the context the word is used in. It's just a knee-jerk reaction.
NEWSFLASH: Russia has enough problems of their own just keeping their country from crumbling into nothingness. They don't need or want to invade the US. They are so fucking terrified that their end is upon them that all they can think to do is desperately hold on to what they have. Their hands are too full to even think of taking over anything. And to make matters worse for them, the Americans keep jumping up and down like spoiled children and having a tantrum every time Russia sticks its head out to protect something, or even to help their neighbors like the South Ossetians, or when Russia speaks up when it feels threatened because the US is putting missile bases right-fucking-next-door.
But, you know, Russia is an evil commie state because... because... Heck! Because they just are! And they have an EVIL dictator too! And he was elected by the Russian people because... well, because he cheated! And the Russians are all commie bastards so they elected an evil dictator! For the THIRD TIME!!! And he has done so much good for the country because... well because the country is evil! And that means that an EVIL ruler will do EVIL for an EVIL country which will be GOOD for the country but is still EVIL!
What was that? The police beat up and lock up protesters? But... that doesn't make the president evil does it? Because in the US I've seen...
Yeah. Proof please. Show me that your claims are more than just propaganda.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
