The US has plenty of industrial capacity, especially weaponry. We do lack consumer driven production, but not heavy industry.
We don't "fritter" away our resources. We would be able to divert steel, oil, rubber, etc. away from competitors and to our shores, should the need arise.
What happens when the country with the most powerful military in the world wants those resources?
That's why the peso is still worth something, now, isn't it? This is the biggest-picture question of all. The simplest answer is that they keep on going in an economic war of attrition. Eventually the maintenance costs on all our technology will defeat us without them even working at it. Think bridges in Minnesota if you think it is far-fetched. Plus the import costs of the oil will become a real problem.
You are confusing warfighting with peacekeeping. They are two different animals.
But we're not really peacekeeping in Iraq. We're occupying permanently. I suspect the civil strife is largely made up, staged and/or fomented by us to justify the political side of the permanent use of some of the biggest military bases ever constructed on earth.
You're right on the point you're after, though: if we wanted to win and get out, we could. That's not the goal here. Getting out gives it all to Iran or someone else in the region.
Still, our reliance on technology is indicative of our laziness (or perhaps a cause for it), and we're also quite unwilling to risk ourselves in the way desperate people are. We think we're special. It will take a lot of pain before we're ready to fight like that in infantry style, imo. At least in enough numbers to mean much on multiple fronts, especially if one front is Chinese.
How will China keep its ports open and supply lines intact against the US Navy?
...
I know it is uber-chic to trash-talk the US military. Have fun, but you do so in blind ignorance of our very real abilities to wage war.
Exactly the point. It's not that China doesn't have an economy without us, it's that we don't currently have anything to fight them with between "nothing" and total devastation. Our military is incompentent/unprepared in some areas, but tech, nukes and funding are not among them. We're "losing" in Iraq partly because we want to, but China is a different story. They keep us on the wealthy side of things "or else". They don't have a way around that currently that doesn't make us desperate enough economically to nuke them.
And we can totally do it with all the precision we want because as you pointed out, their navy sucks and ours can just about hit their whole country from sea based attacks.
Our exhausted military is not superior to China's and Russia's and England's and France's and Germany's and India's and Pakistan's and Canada's and Mexico's and Spain's and Ukrain's and Viet Nam's and Australia's and ...
Regarding the U.S. not being superior, there are about 20k active warheads in the world. We got half, and ours are the best by a lot, so I think we're pretty well able to "win" there, or at least lose last.
Re: the rest of the world vs. us -- The Chinese just stand out of the way and watch the rest of the world turn against the Nazi leaders we keep "electing". It won't take long at this rate before we're completely isolated. Not that this helps: only makes it more obvious that nukes are the ONLY answer for a continent of desperate, broke, friendless, self-righteous, pissed off Americans. This is how Hitler got elected, you realize.
I am saying that if you think that we are just going to sit over here and starve, while the rest of the world lives high on our carcass, you might want to rethink things.
Again, this is how Hitler got elected. (and no, I don't mean that to be a shot at you, Eleua, I just think you are right about the attitudes we will have, and that is where I think they will lead us)
Re: the rest of the world vs. us -- The Chinese just stand out of the way and watch the rest of the world turn against the Nazi leaders we keep "electing". It won't take long at this rate before we're completely isolated. Not that this helps: only makes it more obvious that nukes are the ONLY answer for a continent of desperate, broke, friendless, self-righteous, pissed off Americans. This is how Hitler got elected, you realize.
And...we are done here. Sorry perplexd, but mentioning Nazis or Hitler is an automatic disqualification in all online debates.
At the risk of dragging this thread even deeper into the muck, I would like to add some thoughts about China, and what might happen with a global economic unravelling.
First, I don't believe that China (or any other nation) is going to start dumping US treasuries. In fact, as other assets begin dropping in value (e.g. real-estate, commodities, etc) we could see central banks (and investors) flock to US T-bills with even greater interest than we've seen before. Where else are foreigner's going to put their cash? In Chinese banks with fuzzy ballance sheets? In yet another empty Shanghai skyscraper or Hunan dairy farm running at a loss?
I also believe that China's economy is far more fragile than many people seem to think. They do rely heavily on export markets for cash, and there has been a level of speculation and over-building in China that makes the US housing bubble seem like child's play.
If you add in China's precarious communist dictatorship, chaos is a highly likely outcome of a domestic economic crash, what with mass protests and regional revolts.
I am NOT suggesting that things will be a bed of roses in the US (quite the contrary), but I just don't see any other region in the world coming out of this looking any better. For better or worse, our economies are SO intertwined these days that we are going to see pain EVERYWHERE. Let's face it, everyone in the world has been participating in the credit fed liquidity boom of the last decade, and we will ALL suffer because of it.
Yes, I am sure we will see armed conflicts rise during this coming period of global economic stress, but it isn't at all clear to me from which quarters this will arise.
I agree with your entire post. China is not the great economic, political, and military threat that everyone thinks it is.
The US is not the basket-case the American Left dreams of. Keep in mind that I'm the one predicting "20 cents on the dollar by 2010" for trendy residential real estate, and I don't think the US is sliding into the grave.
It will be ugly for both, but not like the conventional wisdom.
The US is not the basket-case the American Left dreams of.
Very true. The US still has a lot of strengths (aside from a military), and an entrepreneurial spirit that is rare elsewhere in the world (and I say this as an immigrant to the US myself). While the US may indeed face some severe economic pain in the coming years (I agree with the assessment of 80% to 90% declines in real-estate prices), we will pull through it. Frankly, so too will most other countries. There have been plenty of PAINFUL financial retrenchments in the US before (1870s, 1930s, etc), and the country always picked itself up.
I will even go so far as to say that I am actually pretty optimistic about the long-term prospects of many emerging markets (like China). But that doesn't mean that these emerging markets aren't about to experience some some gut-wrenching economic hardship along the way. In fact, if you consider the US to have been the "emerging" market of the 19th century, it had more than a few major economic and political panics on it's way to greatness (anyone remember the Civil War?).
Heck, even Germany and Britain went on to be thriving countries even after their empires (or attempts at them) crumbled. Even if China does turn out to become the world's largest economic power 100 years from now (something I don't rule out), that doesn't mean the US will be an unpleasant place to live.
Don't be fearful. Be watchful. Countrywide has been well managed over the years, or else it wouldn't have grown into the biggest mortgage lender. Even if it were to declare bankruptcy -- a big if -- that doesn't mean it would shut its doors. It probably would continue to operate while it got its affairs in order.
Wow. The depth and purity of the propaganda reminds me of Orwell's 1984 which I'm reading right now.
Forget about the fact that their CEO has been dumping all of his shares over the past several months--no, nothing to see here, everything A-OK, move along, please!
Comments
We don't "fritter" away our resources. We would be able to divert steel, oil, rubber, etc. away from competitors and to our shores, should the need arise.
It's a survival scenario.
That's why the peso is still worth something, now, isn't it? This is the biggest-picture question of all. The simplest answer is that they keep on going in an economic war of attrition. Eventually the maintenance costs on all our technology will defeat us without them even working at it. Think bridges in Minnesota if you think it is far-fetched. Plus the import costs of the oil will become a real problem.
But we're not really peacekeeping in Iraq. We're occupying permanently. I suspect the civil strife is largely made up, staged and/or fomented by us to justify the political side of the permanent use of some of the biggest military bases ever constructed on earth.
You're right on the point you're after, though: if we wanted to win and get out, we could. That's not the goal here. Getting out gives it all to Iran or someone else in the region.
Still, our reliance on technology is indicative of our laziness (or perhaps a cause for it), and we're also quite unwilling to risk ourselves in the way desperate people are. We think we're special. It will take a lot of pain before we're ready to fight like that in infantry style, imo. At least in enough numbers to mean much on multiple fronts, especially if one front is Chinese.
Which is a GREAT lead-in to my nuke theme below!
Exactly the point. It's not that China doesn't have an economy without us, it's that we don't currently have anything to fight them with between "nothing" and total devastation. Our military is incompentent/unprepared in some areas, but tech, nukes and funding are not among them. We're "losing" in Iraq partly because we want to, but China is a different story. They keep us on the wealthy side of things "or else". They don't have a way around that currently that doesn't make us desperate enough economically to nuke them.
And we can totally do it with all the precision we want because as you pointed out, their navy sucks and ours can just about hit their whole country from sea based attacks.
Regarding the U.S. not being superior, there are about 20k active warheads in the world. We got half, and ours are the best by a lot, so I think we're pretty well able to "win" there, or at least lose last.
Re: the rest of the world vs. us -- The Chinese just stand out of the way and watch the rest of the world turn against the Nazi leaders we keep "electing". It won't take long at this rate before we're completely isolated. Not that this helps: only makes it more obvious that nukes are the ONLY answer for a continent of desperate, broke, friendless, self-righteous, pissed off Americans. This is how Hitler got elected, you realize.
Again, this is how Hitler got elected. (and no, I don't mean that to be a shot at you, Eleua, I just think you are right about the attitudes we will have, and that is where I think they will lead us)
And...we are done here. Sorry perplexd, but mentioning Nazis or Hitler is an automatic disqualification in all online debates.
Economic instability can lead to political instability, which is the whole reason you don't go blowing bubbles in the first place.
Right now, we have Godwin's law (which is pretty funny - and true).
Soon, after this bubble hits the deep cracks in the minds of the Lumpeninvestoriat, everyone is going to start replacing Hitler with Alan Greenspan.
Eleua's Maxim: Eventually, everyone blames their economic troubles on Alan Greenspan.
Good night, gentlemen. It was a fun thread. No hard feelings?
First, I don't believe that China (or any other nation) is going to start dumping US treasuries. In fact, as other assets begin dropping in value (e.g. real-estate, commodities, etc) we could see central banks (and investors) flock to US T-bills with even greater interest than we've seen before. Where else are foreigner's going to put their cash? In Chinese banks with fuzzy ballance sheets? In yet another empty Shanghai skyscraper or Hunan dairy farm running at a loss?
I also believe that China's economy is far more fragile than many people seem to think. They do rely heavily on export markets for cash, and there has been a level of speculation and over-building in China that makes the US housing bubble seem like child's play.
If you add in China's precarious communist dictatorship, chaos is a highly likely outcome of a domestic economic crash, what with mass protests and regional revolts.
I am NOT suggesting that things will be a bed of roses in the US (quite the contrary), but I just don't see any other region in the world coming out of this looking any better. For better or worse, our economies are SO intertwined these days that we are going to see pain EVERYWHERE. Let's face it, everyone in the world has been participating in the credit fed liquidity boom of the last decade, and we will ALL suffer because of it.
Yes, I am sure we will see armed conflicts rise during this coming period of global economic stress, but it isn't at all clear to me from which quarters this will arise.
I agree with your entire post. China is not the great economic, political, and military threat that everyone thinks it is.
The US is not the basket-case the American Left dreams of. Keep in mind that I'm the one predicting "20 cents on the dollar by 2010" for trendy residential real estate, and I don't think the US is sliding into the grave.
It will be ugly for both, but not like the conventional wisdom.
Very true. The US still has a lot of strengths (aside from a military), and an entrepreneurial spirit that is rare elsewhere in the world (and I say this as an immigrant to the US myself). While the US may indeed face some severe economic pain in the coming years (I agree with the assessment of 80% to 90% declines in real-estate prices), we will pull through it. Frankly, so too will most other countries. There have been plenty of PAINFUL financial retrenchments in the US before (1870s, 1930s, etc), and the country always picked itself up.
I will even go so far as to say that I am actually pretty optimistic about the long-term prospects of many emerging markets (like China). But that doesn't mean that these emerging markets aren't about to experience some some gut-wrenching economic hardship along the way. In fact, if you consider the US to have been the "emerging" market of the 19th century, it had more than a few major economic and political panics on it's way to greatness (anyone remember the Civil War?).
Heck, even Germany and Britain went on to be thriving countries even after their empires (or attempts at them) crumbled. Even if China does turn out to become the world's largest economic power 100 years from now (something I don't rule out), that doesn't mean the US will be an unpleasant place to live.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Ba ... spx?page=1
My favorite part is the last paragraph:
This all sounds alarming. Should I be alarmed?
Don't be fearful. Be watchful. Countrywide has been well managed over the years, or else it wouldn't have grown into the biggest mortgage lender. Even if it were to declare bankruptcy -- a big if -- that doesn't mean it would shut its doors. It probably would continue to operate while it got its affairs in order.
Wow. The depth and purity of the propaganda reminds me of Orwell's 1984 which I'm reading right now.
Forget about the fact that their CEO has been dumping all of his shares over the past several months--no, nothing to see here, everything A-OK, move along, please!