Is this the end of the United States?

Post Reply New Topic

The last attempt at secession, the American Civil War was not exactly picnic. Why kid yourself? If anything the USA is edging towards becoming a satellite of China although admittedly it has quite a ways to go.

I'm a subscriber to the clash of civilisations theory, but Chimerica intrigues me.

Re American federalisation, are you guys talking 1776/1783 or something later? Some of the most advanced economies in the world are federalist/commonwealths.

Chimerica huh? Why not Chimera instead? <.< I mean... Doesn't the image of a composite monster appeals to anyone? ^^; (One head for the USA and the other for China... ~ )

You could not answer my question because you know you would be proving my point correct.

Apart from that, I would like to comment on the American Civil War.
Your example is either inadequate for the occasion or you are trying to say that people who want independence should remain the docile serfs of the State and let themselves be ruled. You are making it sound like the South is responsible for the war...
It was the power centralizers, Lincoln and the govt of the US who decided to deprive a people of their independence, staring the war, not the other way around.

For quite a while Europe had been a bunch of separate little states quarreling, fighting each other but the EU is very peaceful now. Why turn the USA into tiny inefficient vicious centers of dissension?

I kinda wish all the superpowers would just collapse already. If they collapse it gives the world same time to try out a new system. democratic republics were made so long ago (I don't remember dates easily and am too lazy to look it up,) and it didn't include such a powerful force as the internet in its design. We kinda need an update. Other than that, read 1984 to get a sense of what the world is coming to. I hope you enjoy the book, because if you do you will be less likely to burn it after. I consider it a piece of realistic fiction; nothing in it is impossible. Some would even consider it likely.

Many forget that it's the victors who get to write the history books.

The first democracy was New Zealand at the end of the 19th century, slightly over 100 years ago, the first place to grant women's suffrage. Nothing prior to that can be reasonably called a democracy, if democracy is "rule by the people."

Sand, there's a reason why the EU works that way. It's made up of rather homogenous populations (such as the "french", the "british", the "germans", why do you think they have immigration problems, uh? <.<). Whereas the USA doesn't have that advantage. What is "American", per se? The standard definition would be "anyone born on US soil", and this why it can be just about anyone in the world ^.- , why mexican mothers are crossing the border to give birth in the USA, illegal immigration, etc.

This is why your utopia of "unified" states more or less works. If it wasn't for the central government, who says Texas and a few other belligerant states that claim sovereignety (Alaska comes to mind) wouldn't secede? The threat of violence keeps them together (loosely speaking).

Well, it really shouldn't be necessary to start a war just as an excuse to increase production through government spending. This could be done without a war. Sadly, the only way to get the obstructionist Republican party on board for increases in production through government spending is to start a war.

You say that like the current USA is efficient.

In truth the problems are much more complicated than he layed out. Some issues he gets dead wrong though from an economics perspective, which is the weakness in the dollar and the federal debt. The weakness in the dollar is not necessarily a bad thing, especially when the economy is deflationary and bleeding jobs. A weak dollar encourages foriegn investment in factories in the US because it is to costly to import products into the US. It basically acts like a soft tariff, benefiting domestic producers. People have been saying for years china has kept thier currency artificially weak. The weak dollar has encouraged european automakers to create factories in the US, VW is moving an entire domestic manufacturing unit into the US. Its not always beneficial as it makes some types of imports more expensive, which can have inflationary pressures for those products.

Also the federal debt issue is often oversimplified by people who have absolutely no clue how it actually works. Deficit spending during times of economic crisis is frequently beneficial to maintaining some stability in the economy. Read Krugman, he has been the only economist that really had a clue with regards to this crisis. Right now the federal government is the only actor that can leverage debt to stabilize and jump start the economy. If you are depending on business, forget about it. Thats when people make a big deal about the deficit it bothers me.

I will say WHERE government money is going does make a big difference. Money going into Iraq, and other foriegn wars, is essentially wasted resources. Money spent domestically goes back into the national economy, for example on basically any issue benefits the larger economy. The truth is it is not that tax dollars generally disappear, it is where the tax dollars spent. Domestic spending gets pumped back into the economy, even the dreaded pork barrell projects, spending on foriegn initiatives much of it does in fact disappear. That is why foriegn wars are in the long run bad for the economy. So doing deficit spending to advance a war can be detrimental, but deficit spending for domestic infrastructure can be incredibly beneficial. The truth is even unemployment benefits are a crucial part of our economy, outside the safetynet factor, this is money that goes directly into the domestic economy, often towards food and rent and other essentials. This is why this is a much more complex issue than he makes it out to be.

Those are the two things he is getting VERY wrong and kind of underlines a lack of understanding about economics.

More efficient than some nations, less efficient than others.

ruveyn

It's a matter of where the interest and energy goes. Tiny arrogant nations spend energy quarreling. No point in that.

Sand.

The UN still has countries in them, with their respective govts. The main change was the free flow of Europeans through Europe and I support that. I support that on a global scale but it does not mean it needs a central government to keep better control.
It is for each individual to become more responsible, not to acquire bigger govts.
Bigger govt is a big risk that always attract criminals into them so they can rob "legally", establishing a corporate sector, take over the market and control people. This is what we are seeing today.

Politicians are elected by a majority, from there on they make decisions by themselves. This leaves a big margin for others to take decisions for you.
This democracy is limited to not a 51%+(or just the biggest percentage) but worse! To the fact that politicians once elected can stretch their policies.

bear in mind the the current POTUS has Larry Summers as an advisor. The same person who advised the former President of Russia Boris N Yeltsin, under which crony capitalism occured. The Current situation is hardly Free Enterprise capitalism, I preferr to call it Wild West capitalism. The best businessmen are the biggest Gangsters,they are the sort of scum who would sell their daughters to pedophiles, and call it free enterprise, if the police were to stop the transaction they would call socialism, or government interference. You would feel like a winner if you could get the President to abolish pesky regulations that interfere with making a profit, and give away Trillion $ Bailouts. This disaster is a reminder that if someone is offering you billions of dollars in campaign contributions to do something, the requested action is illegal, immoral or possibly both. Beware of voting for the candidate with the most financing, Google all candidates for higher office.