[Concerned1]

As we all know by now, we are falling into an extremely precarious situation with our rapidly deteriorating economy, both here and abroad, and the very last thing we need to do now is spend more money! Yet incredibly, that's exactly what the Obama administration is promising to do on a vast new scale. What sane householder would think to solve their bankruptcy problems by trying to borrow and spend even more? Yet that's exactly the solution being presented to us on a national scale right now. Exactly that!

How soon we've forgotten the bitter lessons learned by then colonial England and later by the Soviet Union. Expansionism is costly and nearly bankrupted England. It did bankrupt the USSR, destroying their empire. Both England and the USSR eventually had to close their bases and withdraw from those countries they once held in the palms of their hands. And now here we are with a collapsing economy and no idea of how we're going to save ourselves. And just at this time when we need the money most, when we can save hundreds of billions of dollars by pulling back to our own borders, by slashing government spending and indeed reducing the monolithic size of the government itself, here come those who actually want us to expand our bases, spread ourselves thinner, embark on huge new domestic spending programs, and cut taxes all at the same time!

Had the nations of the world not been so interconnected economically, had they been more self-sufficient and less reliant on the largesse of other, often adverserial, countries (remember the disruptions we've suffered at the hands of OPEC as well as the mess NAFTA has become), what began here in the U.S. would have stayed here and we might have gotten enough aid from better-off countries who may collectively have been able to afford, at a fair interest rate, to pull us out of this mess. Instead, globalism has mired the world in our economic problems, and as we fall, we are pulling everyone else down with us.

What a shame. Globalism was never the answer, it was the problem.

[crampuff]

Of course it was, that is why they pushed NAFTA and open borders so this problem could develop into a finally insoluble collapse.

We cannot fix it now, we cannot go back, the inevitable is to make a "one world order" so that finally evereything can be contrlled by a few. You will be slasves now. Everything belongs to them, and if you are good at kissing, you can borrow things, if they like you, you may live, and if you stay within bounds you can be nice pets.

That was the goal of globalism, globalism was invented to destabilize individual countries especially USA.

[jedinvest]

Of course it was, that is why they pushed NAFTA and open borders so this problem could develop into a finally insoluble collapse.

The only way to fix it now is to make a "one world order" so that this mess can never happen again (and it won't) and make you slaves. Everything belongs to them, and if you are good at kissing, you can borrow things.

That was the goal of globalism, globalism was invented to destabilize individual countries especially USA.

That's true, even if one is not a conspiratist, all this global capitalist stuff was to put the whole house under the control of the capitalists. All the governments are beholden to these capitalists, otherwise, why would we be trying to bail them out (they are actually bailing themselves out, on our behalf)?

We are dependent on them, they on use, the house of cards is collapsing on them, and so, also on us. Someone else take it from here: I have enough trouble coming to grips with 911.

[joewp]

That's true, even if one is not a conspiratist, all this global capitalist stuff was to put the whole house under the control of the capitalists. All the governments are beholden to these capitalists, otherwise, why would we be trying to bail them out (they are actually bailing themselves out, on our behalf)?

They're not "bailing them out", they're making loans to enslave them even further. The banks don't care if the loans are ever paid back, as long as the interest payments are paid every month. If you read "The Creature from Jekyll Island" he describes the process in detail and it applies to every entity from individuals on up to governments.

For instance, the US national debt is never going to be paid off. We'll just work and slave and pay taxes to hand the bankers ever increasing amounts of interest.

[crampuff]

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Look, bad guys will always take over, nice guys don't like controlling and stealing from people.

[mos6507]

We're already so far into financial "overshoot" that if we just did things Peter Schiff's way then it would be TEOTWAWKI and the US would probably never recover. So the best Obama can do is try to kick the can down the road some more and cross his fingers.

[Jotapay]

This is globalism's greatest opportunity ever. Buy only when blood runs on the streets.

They will buy up everything in this downturn and consolidate more. Just watch.

My prediction is that it is going to get a lot worse and they will buy at the absolute bottom.

[DoominHuman]

To the OP:

It's important to bear in mind that "we" are not some monolithic entity. So while most of us bear the costs of empire, a small in-group is reaping fantastic rewards. Unfortunately, this latter group is the one running the show.

This is a well known dynamic which, as you pointed out, has occurred before. But as long as those at the top see some advantage to themselves, they will continue to pursue policies which work to the detriment of those they supposedly represent, even if those policies eventually lead to various forms of collapse such as we are now witnessing.

DH

[Snowrunner]

We're already so far into financial "overshoot" that if we just did things Peter Schiff's way then it would be TEOTWAWKI and the US would probably never recover. So the best Obama can do is try to kick the can down the road some more and cross his fingers.

Actually the best tactic would be to get others to get to that point as well, then you can all sit around the table and agree that you're all f*** and start over new.

The "shine" is already coming off of Obama on a few things, I wonder how much longer before the masses start looking for their pitchforks.

[retiredguy]

By the end of this year.

[joewp]

I don't see how you can say that? Something always gives. That chart does not represent any kind of planning I am familiar with. It's not controlled growth. See my signature.

Perhaps I should have said something like "the bankers are planning it that way", but obviously it can't go on like that forever. We are in the exponential growth phase of debt creation (i.e. money creation), and of course it's going to crash, just like the human population. I think the bankers' plan is to use that debt to create a class of indentured servants, who will slave until they die, sort of like the slaves of the Pharaohs, building more stuff like this:

[Sixstrings]

I've been thinking about this, because of the election in the US.

Sanders and Trump are the anti establishment candidates -- they're generally against nafta, tpp, and future trade pacts.

Clinton, Kasich, Cruz, Bush and Rubio before they dropped out -- they're for global government and trade organizations.

The anti establishment view, means national sovereignty. There are people on the left and right that agree on this. For example, liberals don't like it that American big tobacco can sue through WTO or whatever it is, to force a South American country to pay damages due to their government's anti smoking initiatives. And, environmentalists issues ceded over to the extra-national trade courts.

And then, the right doesn't like the trade deals and global government, because generally conservatives want SMALL government and as local control and sovereignty as possible -- it doesn't get any bigger, than international. Also, many working class conservatives want their jobs back.

And then there are the HW Bush type Republicans -- they're for America leading in the world, and American-based corporations and what's good for international America is good for America at home. (in my opinion, this view can work, but you gotta have something like a living minimum wage at least)

The trade deals themselves are binding contracts, with their own arbitration courts, and sweeping product and environmental regulations. These deals are usually negotiated in secret, and then rushed through the various national legislatures with nobody even hardly knowing what's in it and what has been agreed to.

ON THE PLUS SIDE --

* Standardization in these trade deals do help businesses operate, in the world
* Uniform standards, product safety for imports (that means making sure you don't get toxic drywall or bad dog food or bad people food, or toys with lead paint)
* It's also a way to tie allied blocs closer together, and that helps with combined defense, and theoretically anyway, promoting democracy and human rights in the world, versus dictatorships -- the "American Way," and "British Way," and "European Way." That's part of the idea with the TPP; that if the US doesn't lead it, then maybe China would start a TPP.
* If you're a stockholder or multi national corp employee then the trade deals and WTO and whatever, may be good for you and in your interests.
* The trade deals have caused a lot of poverty in the US, but yet the imports are *so cheap* too. And everyone likes a bargain, me too.

So I don't know, I'm really not sure about it all. It's not a black and white kind of thing really, all good or all bad.

The trade deals in general -- they've certainly sucked the jobs right out of the US, so that's another facet. Mexico is poised to become "the next China."

So what do you guys think, are you for it or against it or neutral?

If any Brits read this -- do you want out of EU ties? For Europeans, do you want EU or out of it?

For those that want out of these international deals -- how do you feel about the fact that it may weaken the overall alliance structures in the world? That's combined defense, if the Pacific bloc isn't kept together, or if the EU were to break up.

For Americans -- if you have a ballot of Clinton vs. Sanders in front of you, or a ballot with Trump on it, or Clinton vs. Trump in the general.. then you're voting in part on a very big issue and two very different directions, it's globalism (maybe bad, maybe not) or it's anti-establishment more nationalism.

Generally, BOTH our political parties have been establishment and BOTH for internationalism. So this kind of choice is not usually on our ballots. Some Republicans, that want globalism, may really have to vote for Clinton. Perhaps some Democrats, that are against globalism and the wars and the trade deals, would have to vote Trump.

[Shaved Monkey]

Im pro localisation

[Sixstrings]

Im pro localisation

Good short and sweet answer to my very long post. Did you pick a poll option? Local control would be option 2.

[Timo]

I haven't voted yet because i'm not satisfied with either of the two options, pro or against. I'm pro-trade, but very anti NAFTA and TPP. Those agreements are simply too large, and do not protect our own sovereign interests at all. They were made specifically for US big business, and not for US small business or manufacturing labor. I'd be happy to allow free trade between nations, but both the TPP and NAFTA go too far, and counter the US self-interest. In other words, the benefits are too narrowly focused, and the results of both agreements are counter-productive. I understand that the goal is to establish a level playing field, but from the US POV, that playing field means lowering our labor standards to compete with other lesser developed 3rd world nations. In the long term, eventually, hopefully, we'll achieve a level playing field where the entire world advances in its standards, but until we get to that point in time, the US is abandoning its own standards to allow other nations to catch up. Theoretically, that would be considered a very noble sacrifice, but to the American worker, that's complete BS.

I'm pro-free trade, but with adequate sovereign protections.

[onlooker]

I voted NO. This is because as it is Globalization and free trade and such are all means by which the wealthy countries and corporations benefit and continue to exert their control over politics and economics. In turn this is continuously putting the normal folks ie. the masses in more and more of a difficult situation to just get by. Also, these processes are allowing the international institutions which are controlled by the potent wealthy countries to dictate the terms of trade to every country on Earth and to impose punitive measures if any country is not cooperating with the Free Trade Global agenda. This is enforced by the WTO. Anyway, I do expect that all the limits to growth will return to prominence local jurisdiction over local resources and local and national autonomy.

[Sixstrings]

And Obama can get stuffed - with "friends" like this who needs enemies. Cheeky bastard. It's OUR country and WE will vote as WE THE PEOPLE think fit.

Obama defends controversial comments about UK vote on EU exit

President Obama, speaking to reporters in London Friday, defended his prior comments urging British voters to remain in the European Union, following scathing criticism that he was meddling in the U.S. ally's affairs. ...

“I don’t believe the E.U. moderates British influence in the world, it magnifies it,” Obama said at a press conference at 10 Downing Street, alongside British Prime Minister David Cameron.

“The E.U. has helped to spread British values and practices across the continent,” Obama said ...

"Let me be clear, ultimately this is something that the British voters have to decide for themselves but ... part of being friends is to be honest and to let you know what I think," he said. "It affects our prospect as well. The United States wants a strong United Kingdom as a partner." ...

Polls suggest it will be a close-fought race, with most phone surveys indicating a lead for the Remain campaign while some online polls put the Leave camp ahead.

Obama described the votes as potentially damaging to the British economy. He said the U.S. is focused on writing a massive trade agreement with the European Union and would not prioritize a bilateral agreement with the UK. Britain would have to get "in the back of the queue," he said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/22/obama-defends-controversial-comments-about-uk-vote-on-eu-exit.html

Just to note, I would think it's likely that Cameron *wanted* Obama to weigh in and speak about it. So it's like a tag team thing, this is the establishment, it's the same establishment in London as Washington, same in the City as on Wall Street.

Our politics have been very similar ever since Reagan / Thatcher. Tories, Republicans.. Labour, Democrats.. UKIP, and tea party.

So anyhow, this is a DAVID CAMERAN *and* Obama thing. I don't know for sure, but it's very likely Cameron *asked* him to say this.

Similarly, the UK establishment has weighed in with our politics. There was a big fundraiser in London, for the Clinton campaign. And, Cameron and the British parliament denounced Donald Trump.

If UKIP ever got too big, I imagine the establishment British prime minister would have the establishment American president start talking about how dangerous UKIP is.

Obama made the standard trade deals argument, that european union "magnifies british power" rather than diminish it. And, Obama said the trade deals and EU "spread British values." So that's democracy, human rights, etc. -- that's what they always say, that the trade deals "spread the American / Western way of life."

I actually voted neutral on the poll I posted.

Because to be honest, corny as it may seem, the places that don't have the globalism and trade deals are in fact quite often dictatorships with a lot of oppression and not the kind of democracy and rights, that we have. There is a bit of truth to that.

But then one can look at a place like Australia -- they're certainly not a dictatorship, yet from the things I've read it seems to me that they seem to have a lot more power with the voters when it comes to the trade deals. TPP over here just got rushed through and voted on blind.. whereas in Australia, I read about people complaining about certain parts and those then got renegotiated.

There's got to be some middle ground like that, a place should be able to be "the American Way" or "the British Way," and not some dictatorship, yet also somehow have some more input from the people regarding these trade deals. That they are NOT in fact, just all for the multi national corps. That if people want more environmental focus, then they should be able to get that. If people are worried about job loss, then someone should care.

It shouldn't just all be negotiated in secret and nobody know what's in it and has to be voted on without even the legislators knowing what is in it.

This is all an important principle here, we're talking about the fundamentals of democracy and sovereignty, versus just some kind of global corporate rule.

I did vote neutral on the poll, though -- because it's too easy to just be a "tear it all down, it's all The Man's fault," type. Nothing is all one way or another way.

In the case of the UK and EU -- I think the UK was obviously in the right a long time ago, to not get fully integrated with the EU. It's just not how Brits are, they just can't bring themselves to do it, to fully join the European state. Now, Germans and French, they lead the EU and they like it. But British people never really wanted it.

Some kind of halfway middleground was the right direction. If I'm not mistaken, it was the right decision to keep the pound (objectively).

If Brits ever fully give their sovereignty away to Brussels, then that whole thing is a mess.. it's like taxation without representation. Which is something we rebelled against, a long time ago.

(I'm not saying EU is bad, it works for Europeans, it's just that Brits are not quite European, they're British)

[ralfy]

Global trade only for some necessities.