Is the American Empire on the Brink of Collapse?

[jackson33]

the US National Debt is currently about 65% of the GDP. that is all thats owed to all the people, represents what is produce in goods and service for any 7 month period. coincidentally this is near identical to the combined European Unions debt and GDP. both they and the US have 13T+ GDP's.

 

the US dollar and the markets are the center of the worlds economic structure. this is primarily due to the buying power of the public, not so much any world need of the US. average incomes or standard of living currently determine this power. if China or India, had these same standards, the US would be a distant third closely followed by EU.

 

if your looking for the fly in the ointment, look to the pending universal health care and tax hikes proposed by the current Congressional Majority. as opposed to any additional government involvement or mandates on business and the public, i am not blind and can see the general trend toward a socialistic society. i might add, the parties bidding for national control seem to trending the same, at this moment anyway....

[jackson33]

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

 

my reply was on the implied statements opposing the current Republican positions (planks) in your post and the words you used. they are there and any reader can justify my response to oppose the ideas suggested.

 

even in my post that got you going; i said "in general most liberal thinking" which likewise has meaning (not all), even if not said by you. i doubt you are free market or capitalistic in the political sense, however the door was left open.

 

there was nothing personal intended, even justifying how you could be what i feel you are...no salt needed, few take my views seriously.

[freeztar]

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.

 

Really?!

 

We took a huge chunk of territory from France, we took a huge chunk of Mexico, and slaughtered Native Americans left and right and took all their land (and buffalo). That doesn't sound wuss to me, but it is a sad part of our history.

 

Manifest Destiny...

[LaurieAG]

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!

 

Hello Buffy,

 

With the US Congress, the Senate, The US Secretary of Defense and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia all castigating GWB over Iraq etc in the past 10 days, his neo empire is on the brink of collapse.

 

The world will breath a huge sigh of relief when the US neo's are gone.

 

But, if he drops bombs on Iran before he goes, and pushes up the price of oil to $100 per barrel or over, many of his fabulously wealthy buddies will make a killing, and everybody else in the world, including most US citizens, (who will all pay his oil buddies/speculators through the nose) will blame him for the worlds largest act of greedy craven stupidity in recorded history!

 

If the US people don't succeed in stopping him from doing this, I fear that they will be blamed by the rest of the world, for the actions of one very irresponsible person.

[Michaelangelica]

 

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”

.

Ironically the ruling coalition in Oz is Liberal and National party.(V right wing)

The sad thing is there are about thee real Liberals on the back bench. Fortunately, by threatening to revolt, they have curbed some of the more authoritarian and anti-democratic abuses of the "Liberal" (sic) party

[Zythryn]

Really?!

We took a huge chunk of territory from France...

 

Ok, not to dive into the others, however this wasn't all that aggresive or imperialistic. Heck, it was far more capitalistic. We bought it from France (the Louisiana Purchase).

We have had some very dark days in our history. However, I would describe little of our past, and even less of our recent past as Imperialistic. The most imperialistic thing I can think of in the last 100 years could well be our invasion of Iraq:doh:

 

But that is what you get when you hire a failed businessman as your president:doh:

[Racoon]

Rome collapsed.

 

And so will the United States eventually the way its headed.

Many people here know this, and voted against Bush and company.

 

But while I sense a bit of smite and smugness from Micheal, don't think your countries won't be affected.

You'll be either speaking Chinese or praying to Mohammed 5 times a day.

 

Thats if our military doesn't unleash the full capabilities of a well stocked nuclear and biological arsenal.

 

I have maintained that America is being fleeced and marginallized into a Global economy that is homogenous and Caste like in its social structure.

Brave New World, 1984 esque.

 

Our debt is your debt, considering foreign investment

 

If we quit giving foreign aid to all these countries , make a few tax reforms, kill off some pork barrell projects, and pull the legislative head out of some asses, then things could be good..

But the controlling elite and globalists don't give a fukk about you or anyone else for that matter.

 

:( :shrug:

[Michaelangelica]

Rome collapsed.

 

And so will the United States

 

But while I sense a bit of smite and smugness from Micheal, don't think your countries won't be affected.

You'll be either speaking Chinese

 

 

Our debt is your debt, considering foreign investment

 

Yes I agree,

We might end up speaking N Zealinder ""Fish and chips".

 

We are all so dependent on each other these days it is a bit scary.

 

It would be nice if the democracies could get their acts together

AMERICA is great. It is just a pity you let the reactionaries propose the agenda

[Boerseun]

I agree with the contention that the US is acting imperially, with an empire on the brink of collapse. The government isn't projecting its power globally in some sort of literal imperial land-seizure, but rather to protect the interests of the real imperialists, the American Corporations, owned by millions of faceless shareholders, largely the American public through investing in pension schemes, and similar investment vehicles.

 

No country in the world can match the US bullet-for-bullet in some sort of imagined military confrontation. But no country really wants to, either. If you take Europe's GDP at $13 trillion, it's the same as the US. But Europe doesn't spend even a tenth on her military what the US does. What this results in is freeing up more money for covering debt, social projects, investment, etc. The US is throwing money down a deep dark pit of bullets and bombs to protect its self-proclaimed roll of World Policeman. Which is fine - it simply means that the rest of us don't have to do it. But the US shouldn't complain about it, now. They have decided upon that roll. But beware if your country has policies in place that don't gel with US policies, or if you have strategic resources that simply must be in American hands! Iraq being a case in point. I call that Imperialism to the n'th degree.

 

The biggest, surest collapse will come if China dumps her US treasury bonds on the open market. This will overnight destroy the value of the dollar (the value of which already being an imaginary number based on international petroleum trade). China knows it can't do this, because in selling US debt overnight, destroying the US economy in the process, it'll destroy its biggest export market. They are locked in a deadly embrace, the one with a gun to the other's head, not noticing that the other one has already stolen his wallet. So, the US will keep on patrolling the world and embarking on short-sighted disasters like Iraq, wasting money and lives for no bigger purpose that protecting its national prestige and making good on its threats so that the other countries stay in line.

 

Will this last? Doubtful. As China develops new markets, and the US keep on off-shoring critical jobs, business and manufacturing capability, and more and more oil traders using the Euro petro market instead of dollar, Europe will rise as the World's investment originator, the East will rise further as the world's dominant (and probably only) manufacturing center, and the US will be relegated to the back benches as a particularly pesky and loud confrontational bully that has a lot of guns but no money. At one point, China will realise that its more profitable to streamline its economy to fit better with Europe, or with the rest of the East. If it pegs its currency to the Euro, which might be likely in view of the rise of the 'PetroEuro', dumping its reserve US bonds will be moot.

 

The US has a great future, but only (and only) if they start to act a little less unilateral when it comes to World Affairs. Consensus is the magic word here, and if we get a World Policeman who can see that, then we might get somewhere. If the US insist on continuing acting like the Global Bully, the world will go its way and eventually ignore the US as a big, nasty bully. Investments are to be gotten elsewhere, who needs the US? They only shout and shoot to their own benefit. The 21st century will belong to Europe and China, but only if the US insists on following its current course.

 

The ultimate fate of the United States of America will be determined at the voting booth.

 

Sincerely, to all US Hypographers: You've had the 20th century. If you also want the 21st, simply get rid of the idiots in charge, and start listening to World Opinion, and see other countries for what they are: The sovereign representatives of people that might not only not speak English at home, but they also might not particularly like MacDonalds. They also might be pretty offended at the sight of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier armed to the teeth in their home harbours whilst intergovernmental negotiations are taking place.

[Michaelangelica]

Sorry I can't give you more reputation. But I think you are spot on!

m

[Zythryn]

Very well spoken B=)

[jackson33]

boerseun;

 

actually the US could today write checks to the Chinese who hold a reasonably small portion of the total US debt. the US people in some manner hold the most and Japan, England about that of China. keep in mind the value of Chinese currency does NOT float on the open markets and the government tied the value to the US dollar. likewise the Chinese investor, private or even if through their government owns or hold great deal of assets on US soil. far more than any purchase of debt bonds. this likelihood then not likely.

 

the jury is still out on the actions taken by the US and its war on terror. as to errors or prosecutions which did not achieve a goal, i will leave for another day. briefly however the taking out of Saddam, was for violations opposed to UN mandates. certain elements complicated what should have been a very small event. if however, the Iraq people, can meet the challenge; form, maintain and enforce some form of diverse government, it could achieve what was not possible for thousands of years.

 

critical jobs; unemployment is 4.3%. we have somewhere between 10 and 15 million workers illegally in the country, most doing the jobs that is said American will not do. on any given day there are tens of thousands of other jobs available in the classifieds or on the WWW for this same 4.3%, which for some reason may never be filled. there is then, in my opinion, good reason for industry to produce goods in other nations and this w/o going into the cost to employ one person under US labor laws.

 

idiots in charge; i guess this means Bush and no doubt Reagan before him. the explanations would take days, however the Reagan to the 94 congress and then to Bush have taken a couple trillion dollar GDP to 13+, while keeping inflation at low levels. the value per capita to levels beyond any expectation of even the most visionary economist of the 1980's, all this from a period of chaos, 10-12% unemployment, 20% interest, gas lines and a total disgust of American ideology in the late 1970's. what ever you idea of an idiot is, its certainly not the Bush or those in his administration.

 

yes, the vote in 08, will determine the future of the US. at best in my opinion it will set up the 2012 election which in my opinion will be the defining election for US for the 21st century. i see no compelling figure at this time running in 08 and fear the results from lack of interest being destructive to the point of making 2012 the big one...

[CraigD]

But the controlling elite and globalists don't give a fukk about you or anyone else for that matter.

Racoon’s plain talk moves me to throw in my personal, highly opinionated, and unoriginal idea of How the World Is Currently Working:

 

In short, I believe wealth, and the social classes created by it, are more socially significant than nations, and the citizenry created by them.

 

I think, therefore, that discussion of the possibility of the “collapse of the American empire” is a somewhat deceptive one, not because no “empire” exists, nor that Americans are not much responsible for it, but because the people best served by it are better termed “the rich” than “America”. The waxing or waning in the prominence of the US, or other nations, is not of significant impact to that of the rich, or other social classes.

 

Since the mid 20th century, an increasing share of the world’s total wealth has been owned by an increasingly small portion of the world’s population. At present, according to a Forbes magazine’s list, there are 946 (about 0.00001% of the world’s total population of about 6.6 billion) billionaires in the world, with a combined worth of $3.5 trillion (about 3% of the world’s total wealth of about $125 trillion). Although most billionaires are US citizens (390, combined worth $1.3 trillion), US billionaires are not a majority. Great personal wealth is trans-national.

 

The first person believed to have a wealth greater than US$ 1,000,000,000 was John Rockefeller, in 1916. The earliest Forbes list, in 1986, found 140 billionaries. Even adjusting for inflation of the US dollar, a clear trend of an increasingly greater fraction of the world’s wealth being held by an increasingly small portion of its population is evident.

 

Broadening the sample reveals that about 1% of the people own about 40% of the wealth. (source: World's richest 1% own 40% of all wealth, UN report discovers | | Guardian Unlimited Business)

 

One can argue well that this sort of concentration of wealth is not new, and is actually beneficial for society. Such arguments are complicated, and, in my own assessment, beyond my ability to have a truly competent opinion of. Rather, my assessment of the significance of the very uneven distribution of wealth is based on how I thing it impacts large-scale goals that I favor, such as the exploration and colonization of space, and advances in basic science and technology.

 

My conclusion is that the uneven distribution of wealth results in a dramatic reduction in the number of people able to contribute toward these goals. Many people live in conditions in which their attention is commanded by basic survival needs. Others, including, IMHO, the majority of Americans and other “first world” people, have their attentions consumed by the need to labor for wages, and the spending of those wages on entertainment and luxuries they desire largely due to the influence of advertisements and peer pressure. Only a small remainder of the population are even in a position conducive to learning and applying science, of whom only a small fraction have the desire, ability, and to some extent, luck, to do so. In addition, the fraction of the population who can’t directly contribute to science, but are likely to favor it as an “affordable social luxury”, is too low for it to be a high social priority.

 

“Socialistic” programs, such as guaranteed human rights, food, shelter, education and health care, are not in my sight goals in and of themselves, but means toward increasing the productivity of mankind toward the goals I favor. In as much as the social and legal policies that have lead to a very uneven distribution of wealth oppose such programs, I oppose these policies.

[silverslith]

ITV - John Pilger - Home

In Washington, I asked Ray McGovern, formerly a senior CIA officer, what he made of Norman Mailer’s remark that America had entered a pre-fascist state. “I hope he’s right,” he replied, “because there are others saying we are already in a fascist mode. When you see who is controlling the means of production here, when you see who is controlling the newspapers and periodicals, and the TV stations, from which most Americans take their news, and when you see how the so-called war on terror is being conducted, you begin to understand where we are headed ... It’s quite something that the nuclear threat today should be seen first and foremost as coming from the United States of America and Great Britain.”

 

 

 

Welcome to the Project for the New American Century

The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.

 

The Project for the New American Century

The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington-based

think tank created in 1997. Above all else, PNAC desires and demands one

thing: The establishment of a global American empire to bend the will of

all nations. They chafe at the idea that the United States, the last

remaining superpower, does not do more by way of economic and military

force to bring the rest of the world under the umbrella of a new

socio-economic Pax Americana.

 

 

 

Democracy Now! | Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq

Author Stephen Kinzer discusses his new book, "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq." In it, he writes that the invasion of Iraq "was the culmination of a 110-year period during which Americans overthrew fourteen governments that displeased them for various ideological, political, and economic reasons." [includes rush transcript]

 

Noam Chomsky: Dominance and Its Dilemmas

The past year has been a momentous one in world affairs. In the normal rhythm of political life, the pattern was set in September of 2002, a month marked by several important and closely related events. The most powerful state in history announced a new National Security Strategy, asserting that it will maintain global hegemony permanently: any challenge will be blocked by force, the dimension in which the United States reigns supreme....

..The imperial grand strategy is based on the assumption that the United States can gain “full spectrum dominance” through military programs that dwarf those of any potential coalition.....A few weeks later, the Space Command released plans to go beyond U.S. “control” of space for military purposes to “ownership,” which is to be permanent, in accord with the Security Strategy. Ownership of space is “key to our nation’s military effectiveness,” permitting “instant engagement anywhere in the world. . . . A viable prompt global strike capability, whether nuclear or non-nuclear, will allow the United States to rapidly strike high-payoff, difficult-to-defeat targets from stand-off ranges and produce the desired effect . . . [and] to provide warfighting commanders the ability to rapidly deny, delay, deceive, disrupt, destroy, exploit and neutralize targets in hours/minutes rather than weeks/days even when U.S. and allied forces have a limited forward presence,”6 thus reducing the need for overseas bases that regularly arouse local antagonism.

 

Similar plans had been outlined in a May 2002 Pentagon planning document, partially leaked, which called for a strategy of “forward deterrence” in which missiles launched from space platforms would be able to carry out almost instant “unwarned attacks.” Military analyst William Arkin comments that “no target on the planet or in space would be immune to American attack. The U.S. could strike without warning whenever and wherever a threat was perceived, and it would be protected by missile defenses.” Hypersonic drones would monitor and disrupt targets.

[etc.etc]

 

[silverslith]

Didn't mean to shut you guys up.

My feeling is I'm not well enough known here yet to engage in a vigorous discussion on " Real Politic " without the risk of making too many enemys.

So I resolved to post a few quotes and leave this thread alone.

Please continue your debate without fear that I'll bite you.:)

[CraigD]

Didn't mean to shut you guys up.

I don’t think your post put any damper on this thread, but just that people have about exhausted their ideas and opinions on the subject.

 

I appreciate the quotes, particularly the mention of Norman Mailer’s remarks, because it reminds me of a John Quincy Adams quote Mailer mentioned in 2005, for which I’m always on the lookout for an excuse to run out:

Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her [America’s] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force…. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.

(source: 613. John Quincy Adams (1767-1848). Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations. 1989)

 

Few words of the founding fathers (or, in John Quincy’s case, children of the founding fathers) are, IMHO, more relevant to the present condition of the US.

[Michaelangelica]

Didn't mean to shut you guys up.

My feeling is I'm not well enough known here yet to engage in a vigorous discussion on " Real Politic " without the risk of making too many enemys.

So I resolved to post a few quotes and leave this thread alone.

Please continue your debate without fear that I'll bite you.:)

 

Playing "Lets You and Him Fight' is a favorite pastime here. Please join in!

(It is the/one? point of these forums after all.)

The problem is the only thing I am never wrong on is politics and religion.:)

But I am finding all this thread too much for a "Bear of Little Brain"

 

Do we really ever really get told the full story of what is happening in the world?

There is so much spin it is enough to make you giddy.

 

And like Gilbert and Sullivan says everyone is born "either a little Liberal or Conservative". i.e., our political attitudes seem somewhat entrenched. Arguing politics on the web is akin to spam; just a waste of bandwidth.

 

No one can afford America (i.e., USA) to go broke so she won't.

 

America does some pretty dumb arrogant things e.g., Guantanamo Bay.

 

America believes its own advertising; about being a democracy for example.

 

America is a lovely place to visit, full of lovely people (with guns); but you wouldn't want to live there.

 

On wealth, I discovered why the Pound is so strong; 1/3 of the world's riches (many, many trillions) is parked in off-shore British bank accounts. The Brits are not as dumb as they look.

So basically only the middle and working class pay tax now; which is fair as they use most of the services :)