I don't believe there'd be a civil war. But I think a lot of those people who've been grumbling about "leaving the United States if..." since about 2002 or so, after a stolen election AND losing this year, might really start making good on it. Hundreds of thousands, maybe even into the millions, of people might start looking to Europe, Canada, Australia, and elsewhere. Some of the younger, brighter people the US will need in coming years might be gone, or at least, their talents could become harder to avail upon.

The flaw in this argument is that it takes the currencies as absolutes. They're not. They're rising and falling in value relative to one another. Think of them as soccer teams. Their point values vary depending on how well the teams perform. People back teams that do well, and if they do well enough, people champion them even during protracted periods when they're just mediocre. The number of guys on the teams, or the skills they possess, aren't affected by the point values.

In the same way, the assets, infrastructure, and potentials of the US, the EU, and so on, don't vary directly with the value of their currencies (100% of I-95, for instance, will still be there tomorrow even if the dollar loses 5% of its value overnight). The currencies largely reflect confidence, or the lack of it, in what's being done with those assets, infrastructure, and potential -- particularly relative to that of other currencies. People need to remember at times like this that the intrinsic value of a society and its fundamental abilities are still there even when the economic nonsense flying around in the air above it all is in chaos. The economic chaos largely affects the ability to marshal and put into effect the intrinsic abilities existing in the society, rather than the loss of those abilities per se.

What astounds me is just how quickly, and utterly, the US has squandered what must have been the best hand ever dealt a nation in all of history. I was watching The World At War recently, some of the collateral stuff with Prof. Stephen Ambrose speaking, then in about 1975 or 1976. He remarked that, per capita, the US staked the least of any of the major combatants, and was the big winner of the war. Proportionate to its stake, he remarked, the big loser was probably Britain, for a variety of reasons he listed.

But the US came out on top of everything. It went from being a considerable leading nation up to 1940 to emerging as THE leading nation. The untapped potential it had were realized, it gained effective control over half of Europe and much of Asia, and for more than a decade, it was really the only major source of tertiary goods in most of the world. And all that was still largely the case when Ambrose was talking, 30 years ago.

Other countries started catching up, of course, and the US couldn't have retained that kind of solitude forever. But sometime in the Reagan years, I think, administrations just completely lost their sense of reality. Profligate military spending during peacetime, allowing — even chasing — non-military manufacturing out of the country, and going from a policy of internationalism and cooperation during a time when it was unrivaled to one of unilateralism at a time when allies and foes alike were much more powerful and verging on being peers, have all combined to unseat the US as a welcome leader in many spheres in much of the world. And this has all happened easily within the lifetime of people still alive. Some of it has the air of inevitability — things change — but a lot of it seems born of ignorance and arrogance.

Time to call the IMF.

Everyone here seems drunk on the idea that the US consumer is absolutely crucial. Not so. China's spent most of our lifetimes building up its infrastructure. They aren't all out picking rice anymore; nearly as many are crowded around Shanghai alone as live in California. They're running high tech processes, they make increasingly good money, and they're expanding that bases all the time. They're using us for fuel till they decide they're self-sustaining, and then we'll be secondary to their domestic market, just as the rest of the world was for the US after WWII. Sure they'd love to sell to us forever. But they want to reach self-sufficiency more. With four times the population of the US in a country the same size, they don't have to be very rich, person to person, to match the level of consumption, generate their own profits, and buy whatever else they need.

So it really comes down to: what can China get for all that money back? Frankly, I think it's going to be the tacit understanding that the US will keep out of China's way, particularly with regard to Taiwan. I honestly believe that 20 years from now, Taiwan will have a status about the same as Hong Kong.

No, it just gets harder, but mostly for you. The US is somewhere between 20-25% of the world economy now, but that's not all going to vanish. And other countries are increasingly filling the void. 95% of the species lives elsewhere. The game will go on, though perhaps not as robustly for a generation or so as adjustments are made.




Yes, but again, that's an issue they all have with the US, not the other 19/20ths of humanity. And unless the US shuts its borders and shivers in the dark behind barricades, then those people will always be free to get SOMETHING for their money. Banks, toll bridges, real estate, port facilities... Alaska...




That's what the US spent much of the early part of the decade doing. But now the strategy is lower interest rates to keep the credit flowing so the economy doesn't seize up. It's a catch-22 and there's no absolutely right move anymore.

Yeah, maybe, but I don't see a lot of people lining up to immigrate into Nigeria to go be happy and poor.




Bah! Humbug! Decrease the surplus population! Fragments of underdone potato! Are there no workhouses? (has seizure; falls off chair a la John Belushi)

Ahem. Every company that takes Government handouts has lost any right to claim they are a "private entity".

Let's look at it from another angle:

What about the father of two children who's worked hard for 20 years, only to see his job shipped off to China in the name of "free trade", and the only job he can get is $8 an hour part-time at Wal-Mart? Does anyone care for that man? How about his wife, who takes ill and requires $500 a month in meds just to stay alive, and this is after Hubby loses family health insurance. Tough schit, huh? No help for you either. The same goes to the shop owner who is forced to close his doors, while the biggest of corporations get help to survive...in this nation, Size Does Matter. If you're a little man, no money for you. Darwinism at its finest.

Lemme tell you something. Most Americans are NOT looking for a handout from the rich. They don't want charity, not if they can truly help it. We are a proud, hardworking group of people that are being subject to forces far larger themselves. What Americans DO want is a chance to work, at a real job that pays a living wage, not some dipschit Wal-Mart part-timer. What they do want is the security of having health care at a time of need, so they're not forced to choose between losing their home and like, dying. What us USA'ians want is for every child to be able to attend a top-notch school, and to get the same education that our "best and brightest" get, instead of having to dodge bullets on the way to school. What Americans do want is to be able to sign clear-cut, easily understandable financial contracts so that their mortgage rate never goes up and they never receive ugly surprises along with their mortgage statement. And I would go so far as to suggest a great many Americans would love to have a lower-stress lifestyle instead of one built on rampant consumerism. But they sure as heck want to be able to have their hair done on Saturday mornings and have dinner out Saturday nights, and to be able to take the family car to Grandma's for Sunday dinner.

Some of you folk on here go on and on and on about how the g-damned Socialists are coming to take your money, just so we can be wasteful sloths. But nothing can be further than the truth. We simply want the same *opportunities* as everyone else, and the same treatment the "big boys" get. Hey, if the big shots get help in the tune of $700 bil, then it's only fair that J6P gets $700 bil as well...fair is fair, right? Other than that, we're not asking for a handout at all. Just the chance to be able to make a living at a decent standard of living compared to everyone else. Let the rich make their money, but not at the expense of the rest of us, k?

If that's really too much for America to ask for its own people, then by God, I hope we choose the WWIII option...if we're going to go down, let's go down big, nukes and all.

Byron, what are those fairy tales? People are greedy, selfish and unhappy by nature. This applies to 99% of the individuals and 100% for the masses of any nationality. Example - they elected W-Bush the first time and re-elected him the second time. )) Difficult to be sympathetic here.

So the masses have the tendency to tolerate and encourage primitive attitude, consumerism as an instance, and seems fair enough for them to bear the consequences from their stupidity.

The issue here is why the 1% decent people should get killed for the stupidity of the rest 99%? It is sad, who would you count on to make things better in that case???

Fiat money system made that possible, by debasing the money in your pocket they make you pay other people's bills. So everything must get purged completely to get the system restarted.

Once the US debases its currency to monetize its debt the whole consumer-base world economy will collapse. Most of the world population will die.

Byron wrote:


First of all, when you talk about America's short-comings they do not all apply universally to the rest of the world that have made other trade-offs. I realize this site is US-centric, but the USA is not the center of this or any other universe.

Secondly, it is your country, not mine. If you do not like it then change it. If you cannot change it then learn to live with it. If you cannot learn to live with it then move.

When America elects governments that balance their budgets and pay down debt, and Americans willingly pay higher taxes for universal healthcare and other such benefits, then I will say they deserve to live in such a country. You will get your choice on November 4th.

Until you are willing to pay your taxes you cannot expect all your children to go to better schools. First they have to actually learn something of value in K-12 though. Or live in safer neighborhoods. Who are making those neighborhoods unsafe? Martians? Try reforming your gun laws for a start. In the mean time your government might want to divert some spending from the military towards those worthy public goals.

Yeah, why in the name of God is that money going directly into the hands of the people who fu¢ked up so spectacularly, instead of first THROUGH the hands of the people who are losing their homes or savings first? It's the same money and it all ends up in the same place; why not use it to secure property and families along the way? Are the sins of people just trying to get by somehow greater than those of greedy risk-takers who sought to feather their substantial nests at the expense of others?

Taxes? Socialistic programs? Gun laws? Who are you, and what have you done with Mr. Bill?

And by that, I would hope that you wish we will elect Barack Obama for President, as he certainly promises those things and more. As for prudent budgeting, it's the Democrats, as opposed to the Republicans, who have done far better in this regard in the past 40 years or so.

And yep, my mind is made up - I'll be punching the Obama ticket come November 4th.

A big welcome to someone from the real world!

+10