[Taghayee]

John Mearsheimer on future of US power.

He seems to contradict PO-speculations/ors.

[Cashmere]

He doesn't seem Peak Oil aware, so his opinion is already, in my view, not worth much.

1. No rationale as to why the U.S. will be a global power, just a conclusion.

2. I agree with him that obama=mccain.

[Nickel]

1. No rationale as to why the U.S. will be a global power, just a conclusion.

Indeed. I didn't really get where he was coming from in terms of the demographics. Big countries are not necessarily the richest ones; people with bags of kids tend to be impoverished, in truth. About the only advantage I could see from his projections of the continued growth of the population of the US is young workers to support retirees.

While I don't doubt the US will continue to work to maintain its hegemony, that's hardly been a prescription for doing so in the past. Hegemons in the past have all had their day, and their sunset. Advantages shift, different ones come into play that didn't figure or exist in the past, and attitudes change. That's not to say it's absolutely inevitable the US will become just another powerful country, but I think it's more likely than that the US will still be solitary king of the mountain 40 or 50 years from now. I think it's clear to most of us that the US is currently living vastly beyond its means, particularly in terms of military outflow, and that that simply can't go on forever. Sooner or later that fever will break, if for no other reason than that creditors will eventually have to pour cold water on spendthrift habits.

[coyote]

I agreed with his last sentence.

[Cashmere]

I agreed with his last sentence.

which = ". . . because the United States should have never invaded Iraq to begin with."

[Cashmere]

Nickel - Consider applying the same rigor of analysis to your own country.

[Nickel]

Nickel - Consider applying the same rigor of analysis to your own country.

Well, okay... we don't face the same demographics issues as the US (positive or negative; it's simply different, as our growth comes mainly from immigration, not birthrate), and we've been paying down our debt for the past 15 years rather than nearly tripling it. The challenges facing the US and those facing Canada are different, both in nature and, I dare say, profundity.

[Cashmere]

Nickel - Consider applying the same rigor of analysis to your own country.

Well, okay... we don't face the same demographics issues as the US (positive or negative; it's simply different, as our growth comes mainly from immigration, not birthrate), and we've been paying down our debt for the past 15 years rather than nearly tripling it. The challenges facing the US and those facing Canada are different, both in nature and, I dare say, profundity.

We'll have to disagree on this one too.

The problems that the U.S. faces areCanada's problems, and as goes the U.S., so too will go Canada.

The U.S. in the Titanic, and Canada is the engine room. Saying, "we don't have any holes in the engine room, and we're different from the rest of the ship" doesn't quite hold water (giggle).

This has been demonstrated wonderfully in the last two quarters, with Canada already leading the charge into recession, which is being 99% caused by U.S. economic idiocy.

Speaking to reporters in Toronto on Friday, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said the sluggish performance of the economy should come as no surprise, given the slowdown in the U.S. economy earlier this year . . .

I don't know who that Canadian is, but he's got it figured out.

If you rigorously analyzed your own country as well as do the U.S., it wouldn't take long to see that Canada is right next to the U.S. on the path to corporo-fascist oblivion.

[Nickel]

We'll have to disagree on this one too.

Fine, but why don't you do it in one of the threads ABOUT Canada. There seem to be several of them for a change. This one's about the States.

[Cashmere]

We'll have to disagree on this one too.

Fine, but why don't you do it in one of the threads ABOUT Canada. There seem to be several of them for a change. This one's about the States.

Because I'm impressed equally with your ability to critically analyze everything in the world except for Canada and your inability to critically analyze Canada.




Look at the bright side Nickel -

While I hope that Canada does extremely well economically over the next few decades and avoids being sucked into the wake (giggle) of the U.S. collapse, if I end up being correct, you'll have me as company for the whole ride down!

[Nickel]

We'll have to disagree on this one too.

Fine, but why don't you do it in one of the threads ABOUT Canada. There seem to be several of them for a change. This one's about the States.

Because I'm impressed equally with your ability to critically analyze everything in the world except for Canada and your inability to critically analyze Canada.

Don't worry. I already moved it to one of the threads on the Americas forum.

[Taghayee]

He doesn't seem Peak Oil aware, so his opinion is already, in my view, not worth much.

1. No rationale as to why the U.S. will be a global power, just a conclusion.

2. I agree with him that obama=mccain.

US still has the biggest armaments industry and armaments expenditure in the world. PeakOil or not, US will still have the most advanced guns and lots of it. no?
Another thing that I was wondering about was that the US govt seems to be in debt, doesnt US still house most of global wealth?

[Cashmere]

He doesn't seem Peak Oil aware, so his opinion is already, in my view, not worth much.

1. No rationale as to why the U.S. will be a global power, just a conclusion.

2. I agree with him that obama=mccain.

US still has the biggest armaments industry and armaments expenditure in the world. PeakOil or not, US will still have the most advanced guns and lots of it. no?
Another thing that I was wondering about was that the US govt seems to be in debt, doesnt US still house most of global wealth?

I agree that the U.S. empire will exist for some time, in some form, for a few decades more.

I just don't see the U.S. being stronger and more dominant in 2050.

It's hard to imagine the U.S. being more dominant in world affairs, to tell you the truth - hands in everybody's pie.

[Nickel]

[quote="TaghayeeUS still has the biggest armaments industry and armaments expenditure in the world. PeakOil or not, US will still have the most advanced guns and lots of it. no?[/quote]

A lot of that's based on having the money to pay the best minds to develop new weapons. I don't doubt the US is always going to be up there; it seems to be where the country puts the empha$i$... but other sophisticated countries have some big bucks now too, and will be able to either keep talent at home or attract it from abroad, same as the US does.

Who, in 1960, could possibly have imagined that The Big Three would be anything but The Big Three at the turn of the century? Japanese stuff was crap; Volkswagens were a punchline. And Korea? God, we didn't even see that coming 20 years ago. My point is, anything's possible.

[Taghayee]

He doesn't seem Peak Oil aware, so his opinion is already, in my view, not worth much.

1. No rationale as to why the U.S. will be a global power, just a conclusion.

2. I agree with him that obama=mccain.

US still has the biggest armaments industry and armaments expenditure in the world. PeakOil or not, US will still have the most advanced guns and lots of it. no?
Another thing that I was wondering about was that the US govt seems to be in debt, doesnt US still house most of global wealth?

I agree that the U.S. empire will exist for some time, in some form, for a few decades more.

I just don't see the U.S. being stronger and more dominant in 2050.

It's hard to imagine the U.S. being more dominant in world affairs, to tell you the truth - hands in everybody's pie.

I agree that in terms of clear cut nation state politics the chances seem slim. But politics have often proved to be anything but static. If it wont be possible to do it through the US, the wealthy will make it work through other countries or entities. All the elite from all walks look to US as their mecca, including the Russians and the Chinese. With its giant economy its bound to have some gravity.

[Taghayee]

US still has the biggest armaments industry and armaments expenditure in the world. PeakOil or not, US will still have the most advanced guns and lots of it. no?

A lot of that's based on having the money to pay the best minds to develop new weapons. I don't doubt the US is always going to be up there; it seems to be where the country puts the empha$i$... but other sophisticated countries have some big bucks now too, and will be able to either keep talent at home or attract it from abroad, same as the US does.

Who, in 1960, could possibly have imagined that The Big Three would be anything but The Big Three at the turn of the century? Japanese stuff was crap; Volkswagens were a punchline. And Korea? God, we didn't even see that coming 20 years ago. My point is, anything's possible.

Germany, I believe, had a more sophisticated weapons production program than their opponents. The reason they lost was because the opponents' economies were 3 times bigger theirs.
If not for American investment the big 3 could have very well been small 3. Yes, anything is possible indeed, but to a greater extent money talks.

[Nickel]

Germany, I believe, had a more sophisticated weapons production program than their opponents.

I don't think that's correct. Sophisticated implies a lot more than just flashy. Things like the tank called the "Maus", that was so huge it couldn't move, for instance, imply a certain lack of practicality. They had the V-1 and V-2, the Me-262, I grant you. But they abandoned their heavy water and atomic bomb projects, they never made appropriate use of either radar or sonar despite the fact that they were vital to Britain's efforts, and they insisted on building multi-role aircraft that were at best mediocre as fighters and nearly pointless in a bomber role.

No one would call the Russian economy at the time, or until very recently, anything like stellar, but when it had to it could turn out large numbers of workable hardware, and in the end, that's what won the war. They swept across eastern Europe without the need for the "sophisticated" -- or expensive -- armaments the Germans were wasting time with. Likewise today, instead of blowing billions they don't have (like the US) on a given aircraft carrier and putting thousands of guys on it to project force, their answer is to design a missile that can pick the carriers out of a task group and target them. It's a lot cheaper, it's unmanned, and its role is essentially defensive: the only time anyone's going to face it is if they've stuck their carriers' noses into someone else's back yard. Maybe that's not sophisticated, but it's certainly subtle.

If not for American investment the big 3 could have very well been small 3. Yes, anything is possible indeed, but to a greater extent money talks.

For all that talking money, they're still bleeding red ink and being creamed by smaller companies from smaller economies who've actually taken the time to study the trends and discern what people actually want. It amazes me that, thirty years later, the Big Three still haven't really come to believe it. They've flirted with it from time to time, but then they always turn around and give us monstermobiles and eventually come begging for more money. If I were in government, I'd say, "No more money unless we see this, this, this, and this. And if we don't see it to our satisfaction within three years, this isn't a loan... it's a buy-out."