Is the American Empire on the Brink of Collapse?

[Michaelangelica]

Read this article then decide

AlterNet: War on Iraq: Is the American Empire on the Brink of Collapse?

Is the American Empire on the Brink of Collapse?

By Mark Karlin, BuzzFlash. Posted March 24, 2007.

 

U.S. military expert Chalmers Johnson argues the catastrophe in Iraq and the staggering cost of running a military that stretches across 130 countries on 737 bases may finally cost America its empire.

 

52 COMMENTS

 

 

 

I believe that we're close to a tipping point right now. What happened to the Soviet Union between 1989 and 1991 could easily be happening to us for essentially the same reasons. Imperial overreach, inability to reform, rigid economic ideology. ... The world's balance of power didn't change one iota on September 11, 2001. The only way we could lose the power and influence we had at that time was through our own actions, and that's what we did.

 

-- Chalmers Johnson, author of Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic

[freeztar]

It seems the biggest threat to US economy recently has been housing, which is unrelated and negligible at this point (AFAIK).

[Freddy]

The biggest threat to the US economy is its $9 trillion national debt! Well, technically the National Debt is $8.8 Trillion as of today! In three months it will reach the $9 trillion mark.

[Michaelangelica]

The biggest threat to the US economy is its $9 trillion national debt! Well, technically the National Debt is $8.8 Trillion as of today! In three months it will reach the $9 trillion mark.

As long as the brits and china keep lending it to you you should be OK

 

What's the difference between a million, a billion, a trillion?

 

A million seconds is 13 days.

A billion seconds is 31 years.

A trillion seconds is 31,688 years.

. . .

A trillion dollars is so large a number that only politicians

can use the term in conversation... probably because they

seldom think about what they are really saying.

I've read that mathematicians do not even use the term trillion!

Here is some perspective on TRILLION:

 

Trillion = 1,000,000,000,000.

The country has not existed for a trillion seconds.

Western civilization has not been around a trillion seconds.

One trillion seconds ago – 31,688 years – Neanderthals stalked the plains of Europe.

MORE HERE

How Much is a Million? Billion?

[jackson33]

figures mean little w/o something to compare them with.

 

the world GDP was near 65 trillion in 2006. the US 13t, all the EU 13t and China about 10T.

 

in relation the Debt to GDP for the US was 65%, the EU at 63, Japan 176% and China well down the list. however China has based its money value on the US dollar. the UK is about 20% which is very low. after WWII the US hit 120% and has been near constant for 20 years, at 55-65%...

 

these things value the currency of any nation, determine the comparisons between the monies and health of an economy. the US, is in no trouble...

[Titas Aduksus]

Could somebody just enlighten me as to the exent of this "American Empire"?

Do americans have a more colourful definition of the word?, the position of the US in the world today is, in my very humble opinion a long way off that of the Roman, Bizantine, Turkish, or even British empires [and a few others] of the past. I certainly tend to think of the US (and it's currency) as influential throughout the world, but empire I question.

[jackson33]

Could somebody just enlighten me as to the exent of this "American Empire"?

Do americans have a more colourful definition of the word?, the position of the US in the world today is, in my very humble opinion a long way off that of the Roman, Bizantine, Turkish, or even British empires [and a few others] of the past. I certainly tend to think of the US (and it's currency) as influential throughout the world, but empire I question.

 

MA, has a way of digging into a point. empire, historical meanings of course are not the US method or desire. call it trickle down or sound practical economics the US feels all nations will benefit from world trade and activity.

the needs for previous empires were no doubt based on wealth, but ideologies, communications and cheap labor (slave), played large roles.

 

additionally you will find previous empires, excluding the British were primarily based or motivated on religious views. dominance or control meant one idea was stronger than another and so on. the British Empire, was purely wealth, like it or not was effective in bringing much of the world into modern times.

 

i would also argue, MA has a problem with Capitalism and most arguments are against its influence. since the US has near the best form of this, any of this influence will be objected to by believers in liberalism or even the communist forms of governing.

[CraigD]

since the US has near the best form of this [capitalism], any of this influence will be objected to by believers in liberalism or even the communist forms of governing.

I believe jackson33, and many popular commentators, use the term “liberalism” in an peculiar way, unrelated to its entomology.

 

According to information retrieved by a typical dictionary/thesaurus search tool (wordseek.com: The Leading Word Games Site on the Net), the following describe “liberalism”:

The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:

Liberalism Lib"er*al*ism (-[i^]z'm), n. [Cf. F.

lib['e]ralisme.]

Liberal principles; the principles and methods of the

liberals in politics or religion; specifically, the

principles of the Liberal party.

[1913 Webster]

 

WordNet ® 2.0 [wn]:

liberalism

n 1: a political orientation that favors progress and reform

2: an economic theory advocating free competition and a

self-regulating market and the gold standard

 

Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0 [moby-thes]:

31 Moby Thesaurus words for "liberalism":

broad-mindedness, capitalism, catholicity, free competition,

free enterprise, free thought, free trade, freethinking,

isolationism, laissez-aller, laissez-faire, laissez-faireism,

latitudinarianism, left, left wing, leftism, let-alone policy,

let-alone principle, liberality, liberalness, liberation,

libertarianism, libertinism, noninterference, nonintervention,

open-mindedness, progressivism, self-regulating market, tolerance,

toleration, unbigotedness

Note that the root of the term is the word “liberty”, which can loosely be defined as “freedom”. Liberal policies, then, can loosely be defined as ones that seek to avoid the imposition of restrictions.

 

By these definitions – those that are found in nearly all standard dictionaries – “free market” capitalism is a liberal economic policy. The antonym of “liberal” is something akin to “feudalism”, “authoritarianism”, or “totalitarianism”, not, as is commonly claimed, “conservatism”

 

I suspect that the recasting of the common usage of words like “liberal” is the result of politicians’ struggles for advantage over one another. Unfortunately, this natural competition appears to result in confusing and disingenuous word usage. Therefore, I think that thoughtful conversation on topics such as this thread’s should be careful not to use words like “liberal” and “conservative” as they are used in the popular media and the propaganda of various US and world political factions and parties.

[LJP07]

As a matter of interest, how did such a debt actually arise, I actually thought they had no national debt, talk about naiveness. I found a clock, some may call it " The Collapsing Clock ", that being the economic collapse of America:

 

U.S. National Debt Clock

 

I just found this second one, which claims a debt of $48 Trillion!?

 

America's Total Debt Report - summary page - by MWHodges

 

Clarification required?

[jackson33]

did not want to use socialism, which i should have.

 

liberalism and conservative are forms of capitalist and socialistic types and a bit confusing. many economies are based on capitalistic viewpoints and range from China, pure socialism and the US, near the top for free market force involvement.

 

however in general most liberal thinking individuals are opposed to capitalism in the concept and political sense. in short government the end all to economic needs....

[pgrmdave]

The debt is difficult to measure, and there are many ways of measuring it. All currency in circulation is considered to be debt. All bonds issued are debt. Those debts though are necessary for the economy, and can be considered 'good' debt (to an extent). However, government spending is tricky. Some economists take into account 'future' debts, such as future social security payments, future medicare/medicaid payments. Others do not. Then there is the question of whether or not these are good debts, that help stimulate the economy, with each dollar earning more than a dollar. There are also different ways of measuring how badly indebted a nation is. You can measure it as a simple number, you can measure it per capita, or you can measure it as a percentage of a nation's GDP. Right now our debt is a bit high compared to our GDP, but it isn't terrible, and is nowhere on the level of Canada, or Japan, each of which have less debt, but more debt per dollar of their GDP. So to clarify - it's too difficult to really clarify easily :P

[Buffy]

however in general most liberal thinking individuals are opposed to capitalism in the concept and political sense. in short government the end all to economic needs....

Glad to know that I can be against virtually every plank in the Republican Platform and *still* call myself "conservative" because I'm a staunch capitalist! Watch out Karl! The radical "fiscal conservative" wing of the Republican Party is about to mount a revolution and it ain't gonna be pretty! Republicans for Choice! Republicans for Privacy Rights! Republicans want out of Iraq! Republicans for Green Entrepreneurship!

 

Woot!

 

Born Republican but never voted for one,

Buffy

[CraigD]

… U.S. National Debt Clock

 

I just found this second one, which claims a debt of $48 Trillion!?

 

America's Total Debt Report - summary page - by MWHodges

 

Clarification required?

The first “national debt clock” site shows only the debt “borrowed against the credit of the United States” – that is, the debt of the federal government. This is borrowing that the Constitution enumerates as a power of Congress, what is reported in the President’s annual budget, and what most people mean by “the national debt”. The figure given by the site, about $8.8 trillion, agrees with the sources with which I’m familiar.

 

The second “total debt report” site shows debt from borrowing by all individuals, businesses, local, state, and federal government. It claims to include debt from all sources: home mortgages, credit card debt, loans made to businesses, government bonds, etc. Although I’ve not validate it, $48 trillion doesn’t seem to me an unreasonable estimate of this debt. Although viewed as an entity, the US government is a big one, with a large debt, it is not as large as all its people and businesses, and its debt not as large as theirs.

As a matter of interest, how did such a debt actually arise, I actually thought they had no national debt, talk about naiveness.

Since 1901 (as far back as reliable source of which I’m aware go), the US has had debt. Some years, it has increased, some decreased. Some months ago I crunched numbers from a few reliable sources to make a simple table of the national debt, inflation adjusted, by year for 1901-2006, to comparing it to the administrations of US Presidents since 1963 (Johnson) - see ”National debt statistics & presidential ‘awards’”.

 

The effects of debt may be difficult to predict or explain, but the actual numbers should be no more than a matter of sound accounting.

[Queso]

the american people, as a whole, I don't think are ready for massive reform.

Although, everyone seems to be verrry unhappy with the way things are going.

The more people die off and the further we evolve change will be inevitable. Just a matter of the fourth dimension.

[HydrogenBond]

America is still as strong as ever. It took a hit during the great depression but rebounded back. America has to remain economically strong. The entire world economy is dependant on America's marketplace. If America was to flop, all the world's economies would collapses as well. The liberals need to careful what you wish for. In times of wide scale economic collapse, people become more desparate, not more communal. Unfortuneatly, there is nothing quite like war, when it comes to thinning the overpopulated herd that has once been fed by the global economies.

 

America is a wuss when it comes to imperialism. Throughout history, any country with the top economic and military might had the right to take what they wanted. American is the most imperialist underachiever of all times. Which is good. If America acted like Persian did in ancient times, while currently in Iraq, it would be peaceful now. But because America is a gentle giant, wearing a fancy suit, things get stretched out.

[jackson33]

Glad to know that I can be against virtually every plank in the Republican Platform and *still* call myself "conservative" because I'm a staunch capitalist! Watch out Karl! The radical "fiscal conservative" wing of the Republican Party is about to mount a revolution and it ain't gonna be pretty! Republicans for Choice! Republicans for Privacy Rights! Republicans want out of Iraq! Republicans for Green Entrepreneurship!

 

Woot!

 

Born Republican but never voted for one,

Buffy

 

take conservatism to the limits, you have a Libertarian, if you prefer constitutional government. from what i have read in your post including this entry, you are not a Capitalist, Free Market enthusiast, Conservative, Republican or by any means Libertarian.

 

I will suggest you could be a Johnson or Carter Democrat. i wont place you with the pure socialistic, border line communist Hillary, however my guess would be she will get your vote if nominated.

 

Bush and his authority to conduct war, are written deep in the constitution and public opinion best never be the a Commander In Chief or the field commanders source for guidance. what previous presidents have done and you are aware of, dwarf anything done by Bush. in my humble opinion, General Polosi and Major Buffy are not qualified.

 

the US government, by constitution has no business playing with the economy or dictating who should produce what and with any social design motive in mind. we all know they can as an entity influence with contracts or some punitive action but i consider this wrong...under any party. since you bordered on socialized care, be it health or living, i can only go to no intended intent of those founding fathers, you seem to so hate.

 

on Choice; my opinion is the unborn child, has no rights. if you look at it this way, then we agree. however, yes most Republicans seem to think different as many have a religious back ground and feel lucky no one chose to shut down their existence.

 

knowing you are a product of Berkley, i hope your folks are proud of your political preference, however i am guessing they either did not pay for your schooling or received something other than expected....

[Buffy]

Interesting. In the post I responded to, you basically said that being a liberal means you are not a capitalist. I called you on that, and all of a sudden all those other issues are required too.

 

Thanks for being so clear about your beliefs! We now know how many blocks of salt we need to take along with your opinions!

 

When I use a word it means exactly what I want it to mean,

Buffy