Time for the big one or: Quo Vadis, America?

Cellos88GT said:
Insider trading is so easy it's stupid, of all the insider trading going on I wouldn't be surprised if only a 1/5 or 1/6th of it got reported.
Click to expand...

It helps that "insider trading" could just mean you overheard someone bragging about a deal a company made but hasn't announced yet.
 
I would like to make one point to McGuffin (and not in a snotty way mind you!): you have said repeatedly that the US' industrial capacity has shrank dramatically (I won't argue that point) and further make the point that this safety net (or lack thereof) will be our downfall. As I said, I cannot argue with you about the decrease of our industrial production, however you are ignoring the fact that there is much, much more to an economy than mere factories and manufactured goods. Overall, America is still at about the same percentage of industrial, agricultural, and service industry as any nation in the European Union: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_sector_composition Sorry for the Wikipedia link, but the table is clear, concise and interactive and is based on information from the IMF, just check the link for it at the bottom of the page. Anyway, I think this part of your argument is not something of great importance in and of itself.

The other things talked about here, such as the polarizing political climate, have fewer answers. America has always been a country of extremists, otherwise our ancestors would have happily stayed in Europe r/t leave to find a place to be left alone. But until the 1970s (Viet Nam, Watergate) we were able to find a way to work together well enough (that sense of 'this is America, we'll be okay' that has been derided here by some). But those two issues (and others) caused Americans to distrust their government and authority in general so we seemed to make a shift to a 'me first' mentality that, oddly, is shared by both liberals (who want more social spending to for the people) and conservatives/libertarians/Tea Partiers (who want almost no government so they can do whatever the hell they want). We no longer think in the mindset that what is good for America is good for Americans. Its tragic, and I'm not sure its reversible by the current crop of politicians.

We've never really had a socialist state here in America (some argue that we came close in the 30s), so I cannot say for a fact that such a system would be better or worse than what we have now. BUT we have had a Libertarian government (Articles of Confederation anyone?) and that was a dismal failure. We've also had a period of essentially laissez-faire economy that the Tea Party/Objectivists keep calling for and this was also not successful in the eyes of most Americans, who fear the power of monopolies/trusts/big business and the tremendous gap in wealth that results from such policies, and rightly so.

So what did work? Well, Teddy Roosevelt took office and enacted a number of sweeping social and economic reforms. He did this by being a damned LEADER, becoming an incredibly popular President among the massive political middle of the American voting population, and using that popularity to bully both the far right and left to cave to his demands. He forced labor and capital to bargain, something that was virtually impossible at the time. And later, when his own party refused to back his reelection (I'm simplifying events here, bear with me) he formed a third party that defeated the sitting President!

The amazing part of all of this was that he did it within the confines of the rules and regulations then in existence; he did not have a true emergency to use as an excuse like Lincoln (the Civil War) or FDR (Depression/WWII) to shove through his policies. He simply saw a need (or heard the concerns of others, or created the need), rallied the people, and got the job done.

So the point of this little history lesson? It can all be fixed with strong leadership that lines up the moderate majority of America behind it. Will it be done? Nope, probably not, mainly because we no longer make leaders like TR; we make political survivors, which are not nearly the same thing. This is why I had hopes for John McCain. I wanted the moderate John McCain from 2000, who would pick Joe Lieberman as his running mate, secure the vast majority of Americans who really want change and effectively gut both the Democrats and Republicans (okay, probably mostly the Republicans) and force through sweeping social and economic reforms. But the far right hamstrung him, and when he tried again in 2008 he caved to them.

So sorry McGuffin, but your pleas for sensibility and moderation from America will go unheard. America will probably have to basically collapse to get back on a good track. Bad for everyone else? Sure, but by then everyone will be too busy holding on to what they have to worry about it too much.

And then the $692 billion we spent on defense will seem like a good idea. Not a threat, just a fact. He who has the most/best guns wins.
 
narf said:
Afghanistan would like a word, both with the US and the Soviets.
Click to expand...

And don't forget the British.

Yeah, I know. Throw North Viet Nam into that too for us. But though we lost/are struggling with those wars, they are inconsequential to the overall scheme of things, because those nations are incapable of projecting power outside of their own borders, nor do we owe them money. The nations we owe money to (China, Japan) are not in the business of projecting power, at least not yet. One billion people being angry at us is scary, until you realize they would have to cross an ocean to reach us. Not likely to happen, no matter how bad things get. Honestly, if America's economy tanks, then other economies that collapse as a result are more likely to lash out at their immediate neighbors than us.

And before someone throws 9/11 at me, remember that was the act of a group of terrorists, not a nation-state that must defend itself.
 
Here is the best hair brained plan Ihave ever heard of to save the economy.

 
bryanbeachboy1970 said:
You laugh, but Reagan believed that an alien invasion would unite the world. He even said so in a speech to the UN in '87. Transcript: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/exopolitica/exopolitics_reagan03.htm
Click to expand...


It has also been a theme in many movies for a long time. If humanity did not unite under an attack from aliens, it would truely be the end of us pesky humans. But to fake a pending attack to save the economy would be worthless in the long run. The only thing it would do is allow us to stockpile weapons to use on each other later, and make weapons makers and the investors, rich.
 
And also anti-alien weaponry would be financed almost exclusively with more debt, which is the main problem on every government's desk at the moment. So it would make the debt problems even worse in the long run.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top