BattleMaster Community
Community => General Talk => Topic started by: Zakilevo on December 07, 2011, 05:50:29 AM
-
Why isn't this man President of the USA yet? I mean this man knows what he is talking about compare to other morons running...
-
lol
-
If I had to vote for a republican it would be him, though if I had to choose a party it would be democratic. He is better then other politicians for being against stuff like the patriot act and sopa, but he also has some extreme views on other stuff compared to other politicians like wanting America to pull out of NATO.
I guess it is good he sticks with what he thinks is right, but if just stuck with what makes him popular(sorta obvious) and took a general republican stance on the other stuff then he would be top tier.
-
Speaking as someone who worked for Dr. Paul (as he is known by his admirers) in 2008, I can very much understand why he is, with good reason, not the president. Even though I have enormous respect for his character and integrity, and count him one of my primary political inspirations, and agree with many of his policy positions, I would still feel dubious about having him as president due to a fear about his ability to preserve continuity with previous administrations.
Basically, the president is not a legislator, ultimately. People might want him to be, but he isn't. I increasingly favor moderate technocrats with an emphasis on foreign policy for president. Keep Paul in the House. Maybe make him Speaker. Heck, even a cabinet post could be interesting. But I have a hard time seeing Paul as an effective president or as a reliable voice in foreign policy.
-
Well with Obama trying to expand the military influence of America, I doubt America will get out of the debt crisis any time soon. Well this will be too extreme but if things don't work out until the end, America will have no choice but to declare moratorium.
As for NATO, why do they still even run that organization? The Cold War is over and there is no need for a huge militaristic organization like that. And about having 900 bases in 135 countries? That is just ridiculous.
My country have a couple of US bases and let me tell you. They only cause problems and damage the reputation of US. People now think American soldiers are nothing but scums plaguing the country.
-
well.. their plan to solving their budget crisis is no doubt to sell outdated arms to all sorts of idiots.
-
Doubt there will be enough morons to by that many weapons.
America needs 15 trillion dollars. That is a lot of money. And I believe US only gets about 2-3 trillion dollars from the taxpayers per year....
Now they are trying to bail out Europe? Are they crazy? They can't even pay their own debt and they are trying to help someone else. That is like a baby trying to change a dipper for another baby.
-
Ron Paul is crazy. All the crazy filters out when he's in congress, because crazy is so concentrated there, and you only hear about the good stuff.
I mean, the gold standard? No separation of church and state? Seriously?
-
Wait what? He said there shouldn't be a separation with the church and the state? Uh that is a bit crazy. I mean there are enough crazies in America who voted Bush because he is a christian... We don't need more church freaks. They are already making the church look bad.
Though I doubt Ron Paul will make merge the church and the state. I don't mind gold standard. No inflation there at least. Inflation is like tax...
-
If you honestly think that the gold standard is an acceptable economic basis in the 21st century, you don't know anything on the subject. I'll leave it at that.
-
Speaking as someone who worked for Dr. Paul (as he is known by his admirers) in 2008, I can very much understand why he is, with good reason, not the president. Even though I have enormous respect for his character and integrity, and count him one of my primary political inspirations, and agree with many of his policy positions, I would still feel dubious about having him as president due to a fear about his ability to preserve continuity with previous administrations.
Basically, the president is not a legislator, ultimately. People might want him to be, but he isn't. I increasingly favor moderate technocrats with an emphasis on foreign policy for president. Keep Paul in the House. Maybe make him Speaker. Heck, even a cabinet post could be interesting. But I have a hard time seeing Paul as an effective president or as a reliable voice in foreign policy.
My heart just broke a little.
No separation of church and state? Seriously?
Not sure I know of him ever saying that. Other than saying that "Separation of Church and State" is no where in the Constitution... 'cause it isn't.
-
Ron Paul is crazy. All the crazy filters out when he's in congress, because crazy is so concentrated there, and you only hear about the good stuff.
I mean, the gold standard? No separation of church and state? Seriously?
Do you really have separation of church and state now? They aren't as tightly interwoven as they could be, but are they truly completely separated?
-
Doubt there will be enough morons to by that many weapons.
America needs 15 trillion dollars. That is a lot of money. And I believe US only gets about 2-3 trillion dollars from the taxpayers per year....
Now they are trying to bail out Europe? Are they crazy? They can't even pay their own debt and they are trying to help someone else. That is like a baby trying to change a dipper for another baby.
Ummm... we don't need to pay of $15 trillion. The Us has $15 trillion in debt, and a $15 trillion GDP. That's a lot of debt, but not catastrophic. The UK has about 65% of its GDP. It's a large debt, and a long-run issue, but not yet the great existential catastrophe it has become in some European countries. It's a huge issue, but there are bigger issues than present debt financing: unfunded liabilities in the future, for example.
And, to my knowledge, the US has not offered any material support in the Euro debt crisis.
Do you really have separation of church and state now? They aren't as tightly interwoven as they could be, but are they truly completely separated?
They're not perfectly separated and, constitutionally (and historically), a complete separation is neither legally necessary nor inherently desirable. I'm thinking, for example, of the role of German churches in vergangenheitsbewältigung. Actually, I'm not really, I just wanted to use that word. Consider many American churches in the civil rights movement. Many also had negative influences, but it's worth noting the prominence of the prefix "rev." in civil rights leaders.
If you honestly think that the gold standard is an acceptable economic basis in the 21st century, you don't know anything on the subject. I'll leave it at that.
So you're anti-Euro?
Because the Euro is almost indistinguishable in its mechanics from a gold standard, except it's even less flexible. The Euro is a fiat currency, true, but a fiat currency governed by an institution with no authority to significantly alter its value, and with little authority to intervene in debt markets (though that is being changed) which are the traditional playground for fiat currencies.
A fiat currency not controlled by a national government is very strange. And why gold standards were adopted: because banks were issuing their own de facto fiat currencies, and governments wanted to reclaim control of money markets.
Going to the gold standard would be fantastically difficult. Any type of representational money would be. There are pragmatic issues. But suggesting that fiduciary, commodity, or representative money is just some kind of idiotic anachronism seems the height of folly when fiat currencies haven't even proven their ability to last a single century, when commodity moneys have served humankind for thousands of years.
My heart just broke a little.
Don't get me wrong; I'd vote for him over Obama. And if the primary is still competitive when it comes to KY, I'd be very tempted... but I just don't think Paul would be effective as President. At all. And that wouldn't achieve a sort of implicit accomplishment of "small government" policies in the way an ineffective congress does; it would just be 4 years of frustration, humiliation, and government-by-bureaucracy.
-
Like Ron Paul said, it will either be international currency or the gold standard. And by looking at Euro I doubt this so called international currency will work. It will destroy other smaller nations.
-
Like Ron Paul said, it will either be international currency or the gold standard. And by looking at Euro I doubt this so called international currency will work. It will destroy other smaller nations.
Heh, actually, right now, simple national fiat currencies are not looking too bad.
-
Don't get me wrong; I'd vote for him over Obama.
Poor Obama. I can't help but feel he is leading the wrong country. His policies resonate more with Australians then they seem to with Americans.
-
I though he only got elected because he was a black. The first black president of us.
-
I though he only got elected because he was a black. The first black president of us.
Think harder.
-
I though he only got elected because he was a black. The first black president of us.
No, he got elected because he's liberal, conservatives !@#$ed up the whole world for the 8 years prior, Hillary failed catastrophically, and he ran a good campaign. He won in spite of being black. Slavery isn't ancient history, and a lot of Americans are still racist and bigoted, especially on a subconscious level.
-
Lol politics... or should I say lolitics.
-
Eh all the promises Obama made turned out to be lies. Or maybe I watched too many videos from the supporters of Ron Paul LOL
-
No, he got elected because he's liberal, conservatives !@#$ed up the whole world for the 8 years prior, Hillary failed catastrophically, and he ran a good campaign. He won in spite of being black. Slavery isn't ancient history, and a lot of Americans are still racist and bigoted, especially on a subconscious level.
I'm not sure anyone can honestly lay blame to either side of the American political spectrum. Both sides !@#$ up the world and country in big ways when they are in power.
-
I'm not sure anyone can honestly lay blame to either side of the American political spectrum. Both sides !@#$ up the world and country in big ways when they are in power.
AFAIK Obama hasn't invaded two countries for bull!@#$ reasons yet
-
It was Bush who invaded two nations for a bs reason. OMG Iraq has a weapon of mass destruction!
Uhh US and Russia have weaponS of mass destruction.. If the super powers leave other nations alone, they don't even need such weapons.
I just love how ignorant people are toward the Global warming. The sea level is rising every year and it will rise faster as the years pass by. A picture from Anno 2070 shows what will happen when all the ice melts. Europe half sunk, Africa 1/3 and no Florida (Thank god no more morons crying about their houses being destroyed).
-
It was Bush who invaded two nations for a bs reason. OMG Iraq has a weapon of mass destruction!
The war in Afghanistan was legit. Al Queda wanted to destroy America because the America government screwed Afghanistan over, and they proved they wanted to destroy America with the 9/11 attacks. So whether Al Queda was justifiable for going to war against America, America was simple fighting back.
-
The war in Afghanistan was legit. Al Queda wanted to destroy America because the America government screwed Afghanistan over, and they proved they wanted to destroy America with the 9/11 attacks. So whether Al Queda was justifiable for going to war against America, America was simple fighting back.
I'm sorry, that would be supposing there was evidence of real links between Al Queda and the Afghanistan Taliban, you know the guys the CIA put in power when they opposed Russian occupation. The links thus far revealed in no way justify the cost and the civilian lives lost in that conflict.
-
Sorry 9/11 did not happen because US was free and prosperous. If you have stir things over seas for decades, you should have known something big could happen in your yard too. Husain came to power because of CIA and once he became useless to US, they got rid of him. And Iran actually was a republic until CIA turned it into a tyranny.
-
I'm sorry, that would be supposing there was evidence of real links between Al Queda and the Afghanistan Taliban, you know the guys the CIA put in power when they opposed Russian occupation. The links thus far revealed in no way justify the cost and the civilian lives lost in that conflict.
America would have had to go into Afghanistan whether the Taliban supported Al Queda or not. Also an argument could be made that Afghanistan civilian casualties are a necessary consequence in order to protect American civilians that America owes protection to first. Same argument for the atomic bombs on Japan. Though it would be better to say the way the war was carried out should have been much better if possible, but that is separate from the reasons why America needed to intervene.
-
I'm sorry, that would be supposing there was evidence of real links between Al Queda and the Afghanistan Taliban, you know the guys the CIA put in power when they opposed Russian occupation. The links thus far revealed in no way justify the cost and the civilian lives lost in that conflict.
Going into Afghanistan to take out Al Qaeda was probably necessary. Staying there to engage in large-scale regime change probably wasn't.
AFAIK Obama hasn't invaded two countries for bull!@#$ reasons yet
In all frankness, I think that, in 50 years, people will look back on our present period and refer to "Bush-Obama" foreign policy as a unitary thing. The main disputes are not hawk vs. dove. Drawdowns would have happened eventually under any president, Obama expanded the war in Afghanistan, and Obama has pursued the global war on terror in other countries with more aggression than Bush ever did. Consider the raid that got Osama bin Laden. Consider the number of drone strikes, especially in the Horn of Africa. Consider the response in Libya vs. the response in the Sudan.
Consider the relationships between their respective "Cairo speeches." Bush's which was about democracy, Obama's which was... not. Consider the expansion of democratic rights in almost every Middle Eastern nation under Bush, and the Arab Spring during Obama's time. Neither can take credit for either, but both, ultimately, took fairly similar responses. Consider Kyoto Protocal and global environmental treaties.
Post 9/11 foreign policy for the US has not yet seen a major change in guiding principles or operating practices. Our allies/enemies lists have not substantively changed. Obama has opened NEW military bases abroad, not reduced them.
I'm not saying that's good or bad. Just saying that their foreign policies aren't that different, and the historical judgment may be quite different from our current judgment.
-
Honestly it looks like Obama is going to be re-elected just because all the Republican candidates are rubbish. Ron Paul may be the best out of them, but he represents what America doesn't need right now.
Naturally, I'm part of the Green Party. ::)
-
Uhhh America needs to pay back its debt? and that is what Ron Paul is suggesting? I mean Obama will increase the debt even further with his Obama care.
-
Uhhh America needs to pay back its debt? and that is what Ron Paul is suggesting? I mean Obama will increase the debt even further with his Obama care.
Debt isn't all America needs. I'd rather keep Obama and have large debt than support a Libertarian who thinks that there shouldn't be fire departments, police departments, public transportation, grants for education, unemployment, disability, food stamps, and every other type of government system and assistance that you can think of.
-
You obviously do not understand his points. Go somewhere else you Obama supporter!
-
As I said, I'm voting for the green party.
-
Uh they have 0 chance of getting elected though. What is the point?
-
A wild guess: to not vote for any party you don't agree with?
-
Uh they have 0 chance of getting elected though. What is the point?
And Ron has about... 10% chance of getting elected? Maybe 25% chance if he in some crazy scenario managed to win the Republican nod. But you're all for him, right?
And, I'm a Paul supporter; and was back in '08 too when his chances were even slimmer.
Don't down other people for supporting third parties or fringe candidates; even if they're weirdos like the Green Party. The country desperately needs exposure to something other than the Democrat/Republican dichotomy who are in all reality basically the same parties give or take a few minor points here or there.
-
Aren't they suppose to be polar opposite to each other?
-
Aren't they suppose to be polar opposite to each other?
Oh yeah, of course. With that said we can pretty much ignore everything else you have said in this thread.
-
Oh yeah, of course. With that said we can pretty much ignore everything else you have said in this thread.
QFT
-
Aren't they suppose to be polar opposite to each other?
Game theory suggests that the major parties moving closer and closer until they are all but identical is the logical long-term result in any two-party system.
You can construct the argument yourself with a payoff matrix and imagining a time axis. Basically, if they are polar opposites, your payoff in elections as a supporter of either is +1/-1 - depending on who wins. If they become more similar, the payoff shrinks, say to +0.5 / - 0.5 - which gives you the same average, but less risk. Since most humans are naturally risk-averse, this will happen.
-
Outside view on USA politics.
Democrats: Owned by corporations. They pass laws to help the corporations.
Republicans: Owned by corporations. They pass laws to help the corporations.
Third parties: Might change things, but the population seems happy enough with their corporate sponsored two party system.
So..elect who you want from Republicans or Democrats, they'll both screw you over anyway.
Also, this (http://falkvinge.net/2011/12/16/do-we-really-have-to-prepare-for-the-fourth-box/).
-
Aren't they suppose to be polar opposite to each other?
Yeeeaahhh.... is that why the country has progressed down pretty much the same ideological tract for the past century no matter which party was in power?
-
NDP in Canada just became the opposition party not too long ago. I guess if people are pissed off enough, they will actually vote for a third party. I hope either Republicans became an actual polar opposite of Democrats or some party with a logical sense will be elected.
-
Outside view on USA politics.
Democrats: Owned by corporations. They pass laws to help the corporations.
Republicans: Owned by corporations. They pass laws to help the corporations.
Third parties: Might change things, but the population seems happy enough with their corporate sponsored two party system.
Agreed. Here in the UK we don't get loads of news about the US elections until they happen, but I have seen that both parties are constantly spending money on campaigning with that money coming from corporations and generally making a lot of noise without much backup. I've also seen the Republican candidates seem to be fairly crazy and out of touch: 999 tax plan, moon mining bases, joking about $10k bets, forgetting what their policies are.
Whoever gets elected next year is going to have a tough four years. America seems to be waking up to the fact it isn't the world's greatest super power any more and I doubt it's going to go down well when it's bundled together with debt, the style of public politics over there and general anger about living standards decreasing/not improving greatly for most people.
With regards to polar opposites, the UK seems to go in cycles. Our parties started on the left and right, came into the middle and they're now going back again. Some people might say it's because of how the funding system works here (a small few giving a lot of money to the Conservatives, trade unions giving money to Labour, not many funding the Liberal Democrats). As the for the US, from the outside it seems that the Democrats are just right-of-centre with the Republicans being right (some being far right). Not having lived there myself, I'm not sure how accurate that is as that would imply that there's very little appetite for leftist polices.
I guess if people are pissed off enough, they will actually vote for a third party.
UK's Liberal Democrats. 3rd party, now part of the government at the last election. But now they're really far behind in the polls. However you would be surprised how many people still think otherwise in a First Past the Post system: "why should I vote for [3rd party]? They have no chance of getting into government, so it's a wasted vote". Somewhere with a proportional system (most of Europe), you'll find there isn't a "3rd party" in the sense of "useless party".
-
I was like that a day or two ago until I saw a news. Then I realized NDP barely had over 10 seats until the last election.
-
If you can only follow the mobs, and vote for the big parties so at least you have a chance of 'winning', you're not even worth your right to vote. It's not because the party you favor can't press on the policy that your vote is lost.
-
So when will the actual election start?
-
America seems to be waking up to the fact it isn't the world's greatest super power any more and I doubt it's going to go down well when it's bundled together with debt, the style of public politics over there and general anger about living standards decreasing/not improving greatly for most people.
I would suggest the issue is even harder.
America is still the world's strongest power, on practically every scale, and is still top-10 in most per capita rankings as well. The difference is that we're not the ONLY power as we have been since '91. The world from 1991 to 2007 or so (the ending date is fuzzy; you could place it anywhere from 2001 to 2008) could be meaningfully divided into three groups: "US," "US Allies," "Irrelevant Backwater." Or at least it seemed like it could be so divided. And anytime an Irrelevant Backwater got uppity, the US and allies could take care of it (Persian Gulf War, Bosnia).
The US is not so much weaker than it was then (in many ways it is stronger); the difference is that great power politics are returning. The Chinese sphere of influence is just one such factor; India is not so far behind. Anxieties over Japan's rise in the '80's were circumstantially misplaced, but reflected a real problem for the US: how to define foreign policy in absence of a clear existential foe. The US historically has either been isolationist or monopolist. We either don't interact, or we are the only game in town (and if there's another game in town, we will fight it, by proxy or otherwise).
The US learning to handle its role as the strongest of several powers is probably more challenging, because the US still has all its strength with which to !@#$ up. A weak US wouldn't !@#$ up as much; a weak US, lacking in military or economic strength, would not be able to launch military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc, or maintain carrier groups in every ocean. But the US remains quite strong, and so can do those things... and so can colossally screw itself.
Debt... yeah. Should be paid off. Or, rather, we need to be shrinking it relative to GDP. IMHO, growth perspectives, even at their rosiest, don't seem good enough to plausibly suggest that "growing out of debt" is possible for the US. That would require stunning amounts of growth that just doesn't seem likely. Inflating out of debt is hypothetically possible right now, but with how much money has already been pumped into the economy, while hyperinflation is no immediate risk, monetary authorities are wise to be careful. Plus, financial institutions are developing adaptive responses to monetary policy, meaning that most of the research of the past 20 years is increasingly irrelevant.
Which leaves the only meaningful way out of debt as fiscal policy, which will further hamper growth.
Or default, of course. Which, while it many ways it would be catastrophic (especially in terms of what it would do to US retirement funds and pension plans, and Chinese ones), most research has suggested that defaulting on debt in large economies with market power, especially if followed by credible policy change, has comparatively small side effects (comparatively, of course, referencing hypothetical costs of paying the pre-default obligation plus future interest).
-
So when will the actual election start?
Define "election". If you mean "when do they start campaigning", then probably January 2009. If you mean "when can people vote", I think that's November next year - an American can probably give you the exact date.
America is still the world's strongest power, on practically every scale
I'm not too sure about that to be honest. Their political weight has been subdued a lot lately, especially with the "last minute" agreement on raising their debt ceiling. That made a lot of countries a little annoyed as it seemed like America was just a big child stamping its foot. Their involvement in Libya wasn't as great as it could have been, they took much more of a back seat in that. Now you're pulling out of Iraq whilst other allies are still there. America's power is failing and, to be honest, I would say China is the world's most powerful at the moment. Just look at their stance on Libya, a lot of countries decided not to get involved because China was the first to say "no, we don't want to". China also holds a darn lot of American debt (as you noted), as well as debt in many other countries. They've also offered to put up money for the Euro crisis. So what they say has a lot of weight from intimidation in Europe and a lot of weight from admiration in Asia. Their military is probably just as well armed as the American military, except they have the funds to be able to deploy it if they wanted to.
But yeah, they're still one of the strongest and always will be - the geographical & population size of the country is too great for it not to be an important player in the world.
Or default, of course. Which, while it many ways it would be catastrophic (especially in terms of what it would do to US retirement funds and pension plans, and Chinese ones), most research has suggested that defaulting on debt in large economies with market power, especially if followed by credible policy change, has comparatively small side effects (comparatively, of course, referencing hypothetical costs of paying the pre-default obligation plus future interest).
Possibly missing out the psychological effects though. Americans come across as very patriotic, much more so than most of the world (let's not get into who is and isn't patriotic though). That level of faith in their country on being "the strongest" in the world would leave ordinary people devastated should the US ever default on its debts. Suddenly the great nation isn't so great, it can't live up to its promises. I would expect that to have a great effect on the ordinary man or woman. So whilst policy changes might aid a default the effects on the people would be felt for many years to come and, whilst I can't find evidence to back this up, I would suspect that it would effect peoples' ability to get themselves out of any holes they may have gotten in to.
-
I'm not too sure about that to be honest. Their political weight has been subdued a lot lately, especially with the "last minute" agreement on raising their debt ceiling.
Honestly, I don't think that matters that much. The reality of it is that US debt yields fell during that crisis, not rose. And even as Europe begins to try to get its house in order, US debt yields remain low. Simply put, all the US' political gridlock is still assessed as more functional, according to almost any measure, than most of Europe. And pretty soon China will join that club. I've been arguing that China will start to face serious problems soon for a while; what is funny is that Paul Krugman, with whom I usually disagree, recently wrote a piece about China being about to face a major negative economic shock as well.
That made a lot of countries a little annoyed as it seemed like America was just a big child stamping its foot.
See "European Union."
Their involvement in Libya wasn't as great as it could have been, they took much more of a back seat in that.
This is laughable. I'll tell you whose involvement wasn't what it could have been: Europe. Panzified half-arsed European pseudo-military wannabes couldn't get the job done in their own back yard. Spain and Italy both have brand-new (2008 and 2010 commissioning) aircraft carriers that they didn't deploy. Italy deployed their small one from the 80's, briefly. France deployed theirs, and practically had to decommission it from wear and tear.
The US shouldn't have needed to do anything in Libya. But Europe is a lackluster washed out power unable to manage its own affairs, so Uncle Sam had to come in and supply the drones, carrier support, in-flight refueling, technical coordination, etc. Europe did better than in the past, but still hilariously poorly. That British SAS unit getting captured by the Libyan rebels was funny too. Frankly, the US did more in Libya than it should have had to, and hopefully European nations will get the signal soon that they need to approximately double their military expenditures and start coordinating better. Libya wasn't a sign of American weakness; overall we performed very well in Libya. Libya will be held up for years in the US as the poster child for successful foreign intervention, compared very positively to Iraq.
Now you're pulling out of Iraq whilst other allies are still there.
That I did not know. Who's still there, and how many of them?
America's power is failing and, to be honest, I would say China is the world's most powerful at the moment.
Perception does not create reality. China is perceived to be strong. They are not in reality as strong as the US. They have 0 carriers. The US has 11. They have a few hundred nukes. The US has a few thousand (and Russia has even more, but they're outdated and poorly maintained). China has no serious deployments of cruisers (actually, I checked wikipedia, they have no cruisers or battleships; their largest ships are destroyers). What stealth technology they have is the product of learning from second-hand salvage of downed American craft. Their economy remains, what, just over 1/3 the size of the US?
In the long run, China could be stronger than the US, if they play their cards right. But if we hypothesize foreign nations' strength being demographically predicated, India is the winner. Younger, faster growth, less of a "baby boom" issue, will ultimately be more populous than China, and a better strategic position in terms of access to resources and markets. India is a natural hegemon without serious competitors in the Indian Ocean besides the US, with whom it has fairly good relations now, Australia, who are US allies, and Indonesia, whose competitition consists of trying not to be subsumed into an Indian sphere of influence.
Just look at their stance on Libya, a lot of countries decided not to get involved because China was the first to say "no, we don't want to".
Yes, China leads a meaningful power bloc or sphere of influence. As I said, the world is no longer unipolar; there are multiple powers. But arguing that China's support among a serious of mostly weak nations whose economies are dependency-driven makes it a world power is funny. How many nations that backed out would have sent meaningful military aid if China hadn't backed out?
China also holds a darn lot of American debt (as you noted), as well as debt in many other countries.
To parphrase Keynes, "If you owe China one dollar, China owns you. But if you own China $2.3 trillion, you own China." Sovereign debt holdings are hilariously bad indicators of power. In fact, China holding lots of US debt would serve as incentive for the US not to service its debt, if we presume a model wherein the US and China must be in competition. Debt from small countries is a very real power; I don't know what China's sovereign debt portfolio looks like. I imagine that information isn't publicly available, at least not all in one place. But for large nations, it's the opposite. Plus, China sits on a lot of USD... which is awesome. China sitting on USD gives the US more flexibility in economic policy, especially the monetary side, where it's like having a money-sink. China sitting on USD is literally like us paying them for goods, then them lighting the dollar bills on fire.
There's only one place China can meaningfully spend all their dollars they earn: the US. The US' status as a reserve currency slightly mitigates the economic weight of this currency effect, but increases the monetary effect. If China actually started using that money, the US might run a trade surplus... and China would run even more of a deficit.
They've also offered to put up money for the Euro crisis. So what they say has a lot of weight from intimidation in Europe and a lot of weight from admiration in Asia.
They have indeed, which was very interesting. Did they actually end up giving any money in the end? I didn't finish following that story.
However, their power to intimidate in Europe is not a product of China's absolute strength, but of Europe's absolute weakness, leading to relative strength for China. If Europe had a stronger military and less of a deserve to fight political civil wars every few years, it wouldn't be so weak.
Their military is probably just as well armed as the American military, except they have the funds to be able to deploy it if they wanted to.
The US has plenty of money to deploy whenever and wherever it is needed. Reports of America's demise are greatly exaggerated.
And being "just as well armed" is hilarious. I don't feel like looking up all the stats, but I'm reasonably confident that the US outguns China in every single category imagineable for military gear except absolute manpower.
-
China cannot be compared to the US just yet. China is way too unstable. Over half of their population is still living under poverty, and they treat other non Chinese population living in China badly. There are way too many problems which China has to overcome. If it does not do that, they can say good bye to the 21st century being the century of China.
Every country goes through a cycle. I think the average length of peak is 80 ~ 120 years? The US was not even considered a super power before WW 1. Unlike other countries with richer histories, a country formed by immigrants need something to pull their citizens together. I think I read an article a long time ago saying how the US does this with their flag. Unlike the Western countries, the Eastern countries have one major population group in their countries and people look alike as well giving them a sense of unity. This generally leads to racism and with some government propaganda, people become pretty patriotic. They also use history as a tool of propaganda as well.
-
Ron Paul not at 24-25%. Just have to bring down Mitt Romney!
-
words
Vellos, how can you say all this and support Paul? You know that he wants to whittle down the US military to just enough to protect US territories, right? That probably means the US will no longer have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined.
-
He is not planning to reduce the military size. I think he is just trying to bring soldiers home. America is running an empire and falling apart because of it.
-
Vellos, how can you say all this and support Paul? You know that he wants to whittle down the US military to just enough to protect US territories, right? That probably means the US will no longer have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined.
1. I'm not sure how Vellos simply recognizing the reality of American military supremacy around the world would negates him from supporting any particular political viewpoint. He was mostly just stating fact, not commenting whether it should or should not be so.
2. I don't Ron Paul has ever said he wants to whittle down the military to just protect U.S. territories. I am pretty sure he advocates a very strong national defense. His primary foreign policy issue is that there is a big difference having great national defense capable of defending our home and striking out at our enemies if needed, and permanently and constantly exerting military influence all the time in all places around the world. But, mostly what he has harped on in this campaign has been "bring the troops home" and "stop effing stuff up abroad."
-
Vellos, how can you say all this and support Paul? You know that he wants to whittle down the US military to just enough to protect US territories, right? That probably means the US will no longer have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined.
What Perth said.
Also... where did I say I'm an especially strong supporter of Ron Paul? I worked for him in 2008 briefly; I was downright passionate about him. I still find him a very interesting candidate representing a valuable point of view, and he has many policies with which I do agree. But I disagree with many as well.
Most importantly with a figure like Paul, however, is that any support I do have for him his ultimately not derivative from his policy positions in detail, but from the fact that he is one of the only candidates on either side who represents a known commodity. He can make the most credible "I promise X" statements of any candidate. And I respect him a great deal as a man and a political figure, even aside from any disagreements.