NationStates Jolt Archive

US debt has risen far beyond the safe limit of 6% of GDP (GNP) and has widened under the Bush administration.

Americans will never be able to pay off the US debt which reaches into the trillions!

Will this result in a financial crisis in years to come? Could fiscal mismanagement since the Cold War era finally rear its ugly head and cause the economic downfall of the American Empire?

(NOTE: THE USA IS TECHNICALLY AN EMPIRE. THE TERM 'IMPERIALIST' REFERS TO THOSE WHO WOULD SEEK TO CONTROL AND ADMINISTER OTHERS ECONOMICALLY OR THROUGH SHEER MILITARY FORCE. THE USA HAS DONE BOTH. NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS THOUGH, JUST THOUGHT I WOULD CLARIFY THE FACTS BEFORE PEOPLE DENIED IT)

USA blows.

Well, there was no debt before Bush. There was actually a record budget surplus. And at this point in time, I completely agree with you, Cuneo.

Well, there was no debt before Bush. There was actually a record budget surplus. And at this point in time, I completely agree with you, Cuneo.

Not so. Even under Clinton US debt reached far into the trillions. It has grown under Bush, but all the same America has been in debt for a long time.

I think we also went into an economic recession just now, that is supposably 30% worse than the Great Depression, only it didn't last so long. We lost half a trillion dollars in wealth during this time and the unemployment rate went up a few percent.

You can search for info on the recession to correct me if wrong, but the events that began the recession started in the economic high rolling of 1999, something about raising oil prices because of Russia....

I think we also went into an economic recession just now, that is supposably 30% worse than the Great Depression, only it didn't last so long. We lost half a trillion dollars in wealth during this time and the unemployment rate went up a few percent.

You can search for info on the recession to correct me if wrong, but the events that began the recession started in the economic high rolling of 1999, something about raising oil prices because of Russia....

Well the Great Depression saw in excess of 30% of people out of work. Unemployment in America has not been that high since the 1930's.

Im not talking about job loss, I'm talking money loss.

What is national debt, Lord Pheonix Benicius?

You people are confusing a Debt with a deficit. A deficit is when the US government spends more than its has, Bush has spent 500 billion more than the US has, A debt is how much we owe to other nations and creditors that we borrow from.


We have been in debt for almost 100 years but Clinton had eliminated the deficit, understand?

Just a little fact, Japan is a rich nation but has a debt that is 150% of their GDP, so you can work with a large debt.

America is not declining it is the greatest nation in the world and will remain the greatest until the democrats take offices and keep them. Which will be a sad day until that day GOD BLESS AMERICA

USA blows.

Isn't it ridiculous that somebody has to come out and say something like this every time there is a topic about America? Grow up people.

America is not declining it is the greatest nation in the world and will remain the greatest until the democrats take offices and keep them. Which will be a sad day until that day GOD BLESS AMERICA



:roll:


Well, If most Americans think like you we will all be doomed.

America is not declining it is the greatest nation in the world and will remain the greatest until the democrats take offices and keep them. Which will be a sad day until that day GOD BLESS AMERICA

You might be a redneck if your gunrack has a gunrack on it.

USA blows.

Isn't it ridiculous that somebody has to come out and say something like this every time there is a topic about America? Grow up people.


Do yourself a favor, don't feed the trolls.

America is on the downswing, it's just a matter of time before we start upswinging again. We were on a upswing in the 1920's and then hit a major downswing in the 30s. Same thing with the 50s and 60s.

I'm not worried. The reason why the Soviet Union declined under debt was because a.) everything was a byzantine system, and b.) everything was tightly controled by the government. Japan has a government debt exceeding 150% of their GDP, yet they are doing just fine.
Besides, it's deficits we need to worry about, both trade and government. Trade deficits will decline with a weak dollar, and government deficits should also decline by this time.

Where does blighty fit in? (we're due for a BIG upswing soon, surely? Maybe, a GLOBAL upswing?) Please?

You people are confusing a Debt with a deficit. A deficit is when the US government spends more than its has, Bush has spent 500 billion more than the US has, A debt is how much we owe to other nations and creditors that we borrow from.


We have been in debt for almost 100 years but Clinton had eliminated the deficit, understand?

Just a little fact, Japan is a rich nation but has a debt that is 150% of their GDP, so you can work with a large debt.

Deficits add to debt. National Debt is a nation's total debt including both the private and government sector.

Japan can survive only because their BOP is in surplus. Their Current Account is always positive, whereas economies like America are importing a great deal more (price wise) than exporting.

If Japan begins to slip into a CAD then they will have trouble. Already Japan is suffering from higher unemployment, a loss of jobs to Korea and an ageing population.

Clinton ran some surplus budgets, but even he failed to eliminate US government debts which are ridiculously high (even more so today).

What gets me is that US governments are packed with businessmen yet in the corporate sector a $500 billion debt would see the CEO thrown out.

I suppose nobody cares because after all it is public money.

You people are confusing a Debt with a deficit. A deficit is when the US government spends more than its has, Bush has spent 500 billion more than the US has, A debt is how much we owe to other nations and creditors that we borrow from.


We have been in debt for almost 100 years but Clinton had eliminated the deficit, understand?

Just a little fact, Japan is a rich nation but has a debt that is 150% of their GDP, so you can work with a large debt.

Deficits add to debt. National Debt is a nation's total debt including both the private and government sector.

Japan can survive only because their BOP is in surplus. Their Current Account is always positive, whereas economies like America are importing a great deal more (price wise) than exporting.

If Japan begins to slip into a CAD then they will have trouble. Already Japan is suffering from higher unemployment, a loss of jobs to Korea and an ageing population.

Clinton ran some surplus budgets, but even he failed to eliminate US government debts which are ridiculously high (even more so today).

What gets me is that US governments are packed with businessmen yet in the corporate sector a $500 billion debt would see the CEO thrown out.

I suppose nobody cares because after all it is public money.
No company, however, has $10 trillion in annual earnings.
Japan, btw, is making a strong recovery, and last quarter, it was the fastest growing of the G7 nations.

But hopefully the Bush tax cuts will stimulate the economy. The job growth has been stunning over the past month also.

Japan, btw, is making a strong recovery, and last quarter, it was the fastest growing of the G7 nations.

It will be a short-lived recovery if the Japanese do not sort out their growing problem of jobs shifting offshore and their ageing population.

In fact a riot broke out over the last 48 hours in the Japanese parliament over the fact that they cannot hope to pay the old age pension anymore.

http://www.kent.gov.uk/sp/kentregserv/graphics/rupert.GIF

Over half of the 'new jobs' created this last quarter were directly or indirectly 'government' jobs.
America today shows all the signs of Britain in 1904 when it was the only superpower. American decline is inevitable and the cracks are glaring for all to see if they get their heads out of the 'war' news.

But hopefully the Bush tax cuts will stimulate the economy. The job growth has been stunning over the past month also.

The tax cut has stimulated the economy. It helped to mitigate the recession.

http://www.kent.gov.uk/sp/kentregserv/graphics/rupert.GIF

Over half of the 'new jobs' created this last quarter were directly or indirectly 'government' jobs.
America today shows all the signs of Britain in 1904 when it was the only superpower. American decline is inevitable and the cracks are glaring for all to see if they get their heads out of the 'war' news.

I like the bear.

All jobs are indirectly or directly government.

The US of A is screwed under Bush, and unless you guys get another Carter or Reagan you are still screwed.

The US of A is screwed under Bush, and unless you guys get another Carter or Reagan you are still screwed.


Bush and Reagan are the same and Carter was a moron, we need another FDR.

The US of A is screwed under Bush, and unless you guys get another Carter or Reagan you are still screwed.

The USA was heading downhill under Clinton and now the consequences are being witnessed. Only, instead of trying to fix it, Bush merely adds fuel to the blaze.

That's what you get for electing rich boys. When will Americans elect an average, normal, everyday bloke into office? Probably never because you need at least $100 million to run for office.

Japan, btw, is making a strong recovery, and last quarter, it was the fastest growing of the G7 nations.

It will be a short-lived recovery if the Japanese do not sort out their growing problem of jobs shifting offshore and their ageing population.

In fact a riot broke out over the last 48 hours in the Japanese parliament over the fact that they cannot hope to pay the old age pension anymore.
Riots in the Japanese parliment are quite frequent, yet they work out fine. I guess they have a different view of politics than us Westerners.
Job shifting is, btw, not a bad thing. The first big wave of outsourcing in the US was ten years ago, when modems and chips were made in Asia. However, that freed more capital for further research, and it helped the tech sector grow. Even after the tech bubble burst, it grew back into one of the biggest sectors of the economy by 2002. Outsourcing is happening again in the US, but it'll have a positive effect. This time, one of the fastest leaving sectors are textiles. However, that's forcing American researchers to create more high-tech fabrics, like spider silk made from goat's milk.
The aging population, however, is quite a problem. It remains to be seen how that'd turn out. However, Japan can capitalize on that by devouting more resources to healthcare. They don't have as much devoted to healthcare R&D as the US does. With a constant demand for healthcare services, Japan and Europe should be at the forefront of healthcare research.

Japan, btw, is making a strong recovery, and last quarter, it was the fastest growing of the G7 nations.

It will be a short-lived recovery if the Japanese do not sort out their growing problem of jobs shifting offshore and their ageing population.

In fact a riot broke out over the last 48 hours in the Japanese parliament over the fact that they cannot hope to pay the old age pension anymore.
Riots in the Japanese parliment are quite frequent, yet they work out fine. I guess they have a different view of politics than us Westerners.
Job shifting is, btw, not a bad thing. The first big wave of outsourcing in the US was ten years ago, when modems and chips were made in Asia. However, that freed more capital for further research, and it helped the tech sector grow. Even after the tech bubble burst, it grew back into one of the biggest sectors of the economy by 2002. Outsourcing is happening again in the US, but it'll have a positive effect. This time, one of the fastest leaving sectors are textiles. However, that's forcing American researchers to create more high-tech fabrics, like spider silk made from goat's milk.
The aging population, however, is quite a problem. It remains to be seen how that'd turn out. However, Japan can capitalize on that by devouting more resources to healthcare. They don't have as much devoted to healthcare R&D as the US does. With a constant demand for healthcare services, Japan and Europe should be at the forefront of healthcare research.

If you do not know how an ageing population will turn out then I have to ask if you went to a public or private school :lol: Seriously you don't know what will happen? Everyone else does. Too bad they don't do anything!

(Pst! Have more babies!)

As for outsourcing...americans and other westerners will lose out. Cheap labour nations manufacture and advanced economies are the thinkers. Then when cheap labour nations make enough money from manufacturing they will think for themselves - leaving economies like america royaly stuffed.

It is a fact.

The US of A is screwed under Bush, and unless you guys get another Carter or Reagan you are still screwed.

The USA was heading downhill under Clinton and now the consequences are being witnessed. Only, instead of trying to fix it, Bush merely adds fuel to the blaze.

That's what you get for electing rich boys. When will Americans elect an average, normal, everyday bloke into office? Probably never because you need at least $100 million to run for office.


We should elect Batman! :lol:

Japan, btw, is making a strong recovery, and last quarter, it was the fastest growing of the G7 nations.

It will be a short-lived recovery if the Japanese do not sort out their growing problem of jobs shifting offshore and their ageing population.

In fact a riot broke out over the last 48 hours in the Japanese parliament over the fact that they cannot hope to pay the old age pension anymore.
Riots in the Japanese parliment are quite frequent, yet they work out fine. I guess they have a different view of politics than us Westerners.
Job shifting is, btw, not a bad thing. The first big wave of outsourcing in the US was ten years ago, when modems and chips were made in Asia. However, that freed more capital for further research, and it helped the tech sector grow. Even after the tech bubble burst, it grew back into one of the biggest sectors of the economy by 2002. Outsourcing is happening again in the US, but it'll have a positive effect. This time, one of the fastest leaving sectors are textiles. However, that's forcing American researchers to create more high-tech fabrics, like spider silk made from goat's milk.
The aging population, however, is quite a problem. It remains to be seen how that'd turn out. However, Japan can capitalize on that by devouting more resources to healthcare. They don't have as much devoted to healthcare R&D as the US does. With a constant demand for healthcare services, Japan and Europe should be at the forefront of healthcare research.

If you do not know how an ageing population will turn out then I have to ask if you went to a public or private school :lol: Seriously you don't know what will happen? Everyone else does. Too bad they don't do anything!

(Pst! Have more babies!)

As for outsourcing...americans and other westerners will lose out. Cheap labour nations manufacture and advanced economies are the thinkers. Then when cheap labour nations make enough money from manufacturing they will think for themselves - leaving economies like america royaly stuffed.

It is a fact.
However, there's an almost inexaustable supply of cheap labor. It's very sad, but very true, that some countries find the best ways to destroy themselves, like Russia. If their economy was a bit more open, they'd be like China. Twenty years ago, the thought of Russia going back to an industrialized nation was inconcievable. However, if advanced economies ever run out of cheap labor, that'll be no problem. Quite a bit can be manufactured by using machines alone.
And I know what'll happen with the aging population, as it'll strain Japan's economy in many ways. I just don't know if Japan can handle it. However, they're very rich, and there's a good chance they'll hold out until today's teenagers get old.

[


Bush and Reagan are the same and Carter was a moron, we need another FDR.
http://www.kent.gov.uk/sp/kentregserv/graphics/rupert.GIF

Agreed. The economy is like a good meal, eaten exclusively, but eventually it becomes boring and worse, begins to harm your health. The 'anything goes' economy of America has been good but it now needs a 'settling down' and slightly Keynsian period. Here in GB, Thatcher began that big bang economy and our fortunes shot up. But it was at the cause of much social problems. Since Blair and Brown, we have had the 'settling' period and our economy is still booming. I suppose the time will come for another change of direction, but not for a while. America badly needs to change direction, indeed it's heading for some very rough waters. As you say, an FDR is just what the economic doctor would prescribe.

[quote="Purly Euclid"][
Job shifting is, btw, not a bad thing. The first big wave of outsourcing in the US was ten years ago, when modems and chips were made in Asia. However, that freed more capital for further research, and it helped the tech sector grow. Even after the tech bubble burst, it grew back into one of the biggest sectors of the economy by 2002. Outsourcing is happening again in the US, but it'll have a positive effect. This time, one of the fastest leaving sectors are textiles. However, that's forcing American researchers to create more high-tech fabrics, like spider silk made from goat's milk.
quote]
http://www.kent.gov.uk/sp/kentregserv/graphics/rupert.GIF

Absolutely right. Globalisation, an essentially American 'invention' demands outsourcing. It creates fresh inituatives and employment. We in GB have been outsourcing for over a decade and our economy has never been stonger.

Okay, in all honesty, no nation ever plans to pay off its national debt, nor is any nation required to. All that a nation truely has to pay is the interest. So while bush has managed to increase the debt by a few million every couple hours, america isn't going to go bankrupt, unless you count morally.


BTW, should I be concerned that my college has a club designed to get John Edwards elected?

P.S. The liberals in the japanese Parliment have a mean right hook.

We in GB have been outsourcing for over a decade and our economy has never been stonger.

Great Britain has lost much of its wealth creating industries. There was once a time when Britain ruled the world. Her locomotives spanned continents and were linked by massive liners that connected the four corners of the world.

Today Britain is experiencing higher levels of unemployment and has been cutting back on military needs. Britain has lost its largest industry of shipbuilding which I find this to be a sign of worse things to come.

That's what you get for electing rich boys. When will Americans elect an average, normal, everyday bloke into office? Probably never because you need at least $100 million to run for office.
Of all the Presidents since 1950, I can only think of a few that were rich by birth, others made their fortune.

Those few being Bush Sr and Jr as well as Kennedy. A case could be made for Ford and Carter as well.

Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Dwight Eisenhower, and Harry Truman weren't particularly rich before they became sucessful themselves.

That's what you get for electing rich boys. When will Americans elect an average, normal, everyday bloke into office? Probably never because you need at least $100 million to run for office.
Of all the Presidents since 1950, I can only think of a few that were rich by birth, others made their fortune.

Those few being Bush Sr and Jr as well as Kennedy. A case could be made for Ford and Carter as well.

Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Dwight Eisenhower, and Harry Truman weren't particularly rich before they became sucessful themselves.

Yes, true. Except the fact remains that you have to be exceedingly wealthy to run and this limits the number and indeed quality of candidates.

Good night America. :cry:

[quote=Purly Euclid][
Job shifting is, btw, not a bad thing. The first big wave of outsourcing in the US was ten years ago, when modems and chips were made in Asia. However, that freed more capital for further research, and it helped the tech sector grow. Even after the tech bubble burst, it grew back into one of the biggest sectors of the economy by 2002. Outsourcing is happening again in the US, but it'll have a positive effect. This time, one of the fastest leaving sectors are textiles. However, that's forcing American researchers to create more high-tech fabrics, like spider silk made from goat's milk.
quote]
http://www.kent.gov.uk/sp/kentregserv/graphics/rupert.GIF

Absolutely right. Globalisation, an essentially American 'invention' demands outsourcing. It creates fresh inituatives and employment. We in GB have been outsourcing for over a decade and our economy has never been stonger.
The US has, actually, outsourced many industries before. They've just never been at such a rapid pace, or as white-collar as today, which has people on edge. But starting in the 1980s, manufacturing quickly went overseas.

What we are seeing in the U.S. now is no different that what we've seen in history. As nations rise to positions of power, particularly when they are unopposed in their might, it is their natural desire to increase further. Rome did it. England did it. Russia did it. It's a natural progression.

We are now at a point all those other nations reached where our grasp may have exceeded our means. If this is because we don't have the ability or just don't have appropriate leaders time will tell, but it's no different than what's happened hundreds of times before.

The difference is, however, in the age of the Internet and mass communication, the whole world gets to watch and weigh in with their own commentary, either hypocritically gloating or pointlessly sympathetic. It serves to possibly speed up the process as well as give the entire world a chance to focus their animosity on one nation (even though that nation is not doing anything a majority of their own nations didn't try or do). If there will be any additional effects of this unparalleled scrutiny of a nation growing, time will tell. It certainly gives us all a chance to armchair quarterback, though.

DP

TP

QP

http://www.kent.gov.uk/sp/kentregserv/graphics/rupert.GIF

Over half of the 'new jobs' created this last quarter were directly or indirectly 'government' jobs.
America today shows all the signs of Britain in 1904 when it was the only superpower. American decline is inevitable and the cracks are glaring for all to see if they get their heads out of the 'war' news.
This month, however, hiring in the public sector was flat, and job growth was strong. Unbelievably, however, the sector that hired the most last month was manufacturing.

What we are seeing in the U.S. now is no different that what we've seen in history. As nations rise to positions of power, particularly when they are unopposed in their might, it is their natural desire to increase further. Rome did it. England did it. Russia did it. It's a natural progression.

We are now at a point all those other nations reached where our grasp may have exceeded our means. If this is because we don't have the ability or just don't have appropriate leaders time will tell, but it's no different than what's happened hundreds of times before.

The difference is, however, in the age of the Internet and mass communication, the whole world gets to watch and weigh in with their own commentary, either hypocritically gloating or pointlessly sympathetic. It serves to possibly speed up the process as well as give the entire world a chance to focus their animosity on one nation (even though that nation is not doing anything a majority of their own nations didn't try or do). If there will be any additional effects of this unparalleled scrutiny of a nation growing, time will tell. It certainly gives us all a chance to armchair quarterback, though.
These mass communications, however, may also be a bouy for American power into the 21st century.
I'm very curious to hear from people such as yourself, however, how America's grasp has exceeded its reach. I have a few ideas about why, but I'm just interested to hear from you.

These mass communications, however, may also be a bouy for American power into the 21st century.

They may indeed. No country has ever risen to prominence given such raw power before or under such world scruitiny. If we can successfully harness that and bend it to our favor, the very thing that is questioning our existance may be made to support our continued expansion. It's a brand new paradigm and I don't think anyone is quite sure how it's going to play out. Should be interesting to see, though.


I'm very curious to hear from people such as yourself, however, how America's grasp has exceeded its reach. I have a few ideas about why, but I'm just interested to hear from you.

Well, to be fair, I'm not sure we have. The argument is based on one that I've shot back at general US detractors who claim we're not only losing our grip, but doing so more bloodthirstily or visciously than any other power that's risen to prominence. For all it's detractors, I think the U.S. still represents a major force that can dominate the world stage. The way it chooses to execute that dominance, I believe, will be the fundamental measure of how long it continues to have it.

Certain indicators seem to point to a need for adjustment. While we have military superiority, we are slowly learning just how unwieldy that is in the face of lightening guerilla attacks and terrorisim. The problem in swatting a fly with a Buick is that, while it'll get the job done if it connects, the fly is always going to be faster and more agile. We're still existing in the mentality that because we have more guns, bombs and ammo, we will prevail in any conflict. Until we change that approach, we're digging our own grave as those who conspire against us see and utilize our weaknesses.

The U.S. has the potential to keep it's power base strong and intact for many years to come, but it will have to be through more insideous collaboration and less naked aggression. Today, more than ever before, the war for the hearts and minds is prominant. With mass communication and unpredented access both to information and opinion and with it's prominance in the areas of advertising, P.R., spin and political illusion, the U.S. could win this war and neatly circumvent anyone wanting to stand against it's vision by making them not want to in the first place. However, our current strategy of "might makes right" clearly weakens this and creates more enemies than it pacifies.

Someone in another thread said the next world war will be in space. I disagree. The next world war will be in the mind's of the world's citizens and it's currently being waged, like it or not. Right now, we're losing, but we don't have to. The question is, will those in power realize that a gentle touch exercised directly on people's thoughts is more powerful than any cluster bomb and utilize that? The best way to win a war is to never fight it in the first place and the easiest and most long-lasting way to secure that is to not make people want to fight you and willingly see the advantages presented by your rule.

Well said. American cannot hope to maintain its pre-eminence if it so ham-fisted in its methods. The thing that amazes me the most is that a fair proportion of the US population seem convinced that they will always be atop the heap, thanks to technological superiority and the fundamental "greatness" of America. How they think they can escape the inevitable decline after the rise of an empire I don't know.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

All empires decline sooner or later and let's not be namby-pamby about this, America is an empire, though of a different quality to the past. The cause of decline is not simple and all the talk of weapons and warfare is irrelevent. As a much maligned ex president said 'It's the economy stupid'. Powers rise and decline not merely due to their own efforts. Take Britain for example. GB has never been as powerful and rich as it is now. Part of Britains decline was due to two exhausting wars but the main factor was not any particular 'weakness' but to the rise of other nations in relative terms. If Europe continues to stay united and China fulfills its prophecied future, the US will decline relatively. America may continue to prosper and stay strong but as other nations and entities grow it will decline in proportion. That is the key to rise and decline, the relativityof other nations growth.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

All empires decline sooner or later and let's not be namby-pamby about this, America is an empire, though of a different quality to the past. The cause of decline is not simple and all the talk of weapons and warfare is irrelevent. As a much maligned ex president said 'It's the economy stupid'. Powers rise and decline not merely due to their own efforts. Take Britain for example. GB has never been as powerful and rich as it is now. Part of Britains decline was due to two exhausting wars but the main factor was not any particular 'weakness' but to the rise of other nations in relative terms. If Europe continues to stay united and China fulfills its prophecied future, the US will decline relatively. America may continue to prosper and stay strong but as other nations and entities grow it will decline in proportion. That is the key to rise and decline, the relativityof other nations growth.

Excellent point, SO. Like I said, my theory is just that, a theory. I think the U.S. can emerge as a leader in the globalization structure which is now forming, but we have to work through that structure to do so, not against it.

What we are seeing in the U.S. now is no different that what we've seen in history. As nations rise to positions of power, particularly when they are unopposed in their might, it is their natural desire to increase further. Rome did it. England did it. Russia did it. It's a natural progression.

We are now at a point all those other nations reached where our grasp may have exceeded our means. If this is because we don't have the ability or just don't have appropriate leaders time will tell, but it's no different than what's happened hundreds of times before.

The difference is, however, in the age of the Internet and mass communication, the whole world gets to watch and weigh in with their own commentary, either hypocritically gloating or pointlessly sympathetic. It serves to possibly speed up the process as well as give the entire world a chance to focus their animosity on one nation (even though that nation is not doing anything a majority of their own nations didn't try or do). If there will be any additional effects of this unparalleled scrutiny of a nation growing, time will tell. It certainly gives us all a chance to armchair quarterback, though.
These mass communications, however, may also be a bouy for American power into the 21st century.
I'm very curious to hear from people such as yourself, however, how America's grasp has exceeded its reach. I have a few ideas about why, but I'm just interested to hear from you.
speaking of mass communication, don't quadruple post, thanks

speaking of mass communication, don't quadruple post, thanks

Blame the server.

Certain indicators seem to point to a need for adjustment. While we have military superiority, we are slowly learning just how unwieldy that is in the face of lightening guerilla attacks and terrorisim. The problem in swatting a fly with a Buick is that, while it'll get the job done if it connects, the fly is always going to be faster and more agile. We're still existing in the mentality that because we have more guns, bombs and ammo, we will prevail in any conflict. Until we change that approach, we're digging our own grave as those who conspire against us see and utilize our weaknesses
I find it funny that we became a nation thanks to guerilla warfare, and yet we still keep falling back the same old tactic of massive, highly organized targets.

These mass communications, however, may also be a bouy for American power into the 21st century.

They may indeed. No country has ever risen to prominence given such raw power before or under such world scruitiny. If we can successfully harness that and bend it to our favor, the very thing that is questioning our existance may be made to support our continued expansion. It's a brand new paradigm and I don't think anyone is quite sure how it's going to play out. Should be interesting to see, though.


I'm very curious to hear from people such as yourself, however, how America's grasp has exceeded its reach. I have a few ideas about why, but I'm just interested to hear from you.

Well, to be fair, I'm not sure we have. The argument is based on one that I've shot back at general US detractors who claim we're not only losing our grip, but doing so more bloodthirstily or visciously than any other power that's risen to prominence. For all it's detractors, I think the U.S. still represents a major force that can dominate the world stage. The way it chooses to execute that dominance, I believe, will be the fundamental measure of how long it continues to have it.

Certain indicators seem to point to a need for adjustment. While we have military superiority, we are slowly learning just how unwieldy that is in the face of lightening guerilla attacks and terrorisim. The problem in swatting a fly with a Buick is that, while it'll get the job done if it connects, the fly is always going to be faster and more agile. We're still existing in the mentality that because we have more guns, bombs and ammo, we will prevail in any conflict. Until we change that approach, we're digging our own grave as those who conspire against us see and utilize our weaknesses.

The U.S. has the potential to keep it's power base strong and intact for many years to come, but it will have to be through more insideous collaboration and less naked aggression. Today, more than ever before, the war for the hearts and minds is prominant. With mass communication and unpredented access both to information and opinion and with it's prominance in the areas of advertising, P.R., spin and political illusion, the U.S. could win this war and neatly circumvent anyone wanting to stand against it's vision by making them not want to in the first place. However, our current strategy of "might makes right" clearly weakens this and creates more enemies than it pacifies.

Someone in another thread said the next world war will be in space. I disagree. The next world war will be in the mind's of the world's citizens and it's currently being waged, like it or not. Right now, we're losing, but we don't have to. The question is, will those in power realize that a gentle touch exercised directly on people's thoughts is more powerful than any cluster bomb and utilize that? The best way to win a war is to never fight it in the first place and the easiest and most long-lasting way to secure that is to not make people want to fight you and willingly see the advantages presented by your rule.
I don't feel that we are loosing this war completely. We always hear that Europe and the Middle East are not fans of the US. What we never hear is the opinion from the third world. The Ivory Coast, the Phillipines, China, and many, many other countries have the majority of their people expressing a favorable opinion of the US. Even Russia is mostly favorable of the US, if not for our politics.
The problem is, however, that with the exception of China, these places don't have the adequate communications. It's why they need to be developed, and in my mindset, it's why globalization helps quite a bit for this "war" on hearts and minds.
The reason, however, that Europe and the Middle East hate us is because many American leaders feel that they're more and more irrelevant. The Middle East will capitulate once we don't need their oil (and I'm confident that is only a few decades away), but Europe, for a list of reasons, will become an insignificant cul de sac of the world. Perhaps they won't be less powerful than today, but as Spherical Objects pointed out, they'll decline relatively, most likely to the US, and especially Asia.
We can, and are, harnessing this power. There are a whole bunch of reasons that our detractors get more of a voice than our admirers, but that doesn't stop our admirers from trading with us, and expanding our military. This "war" is being won, but the victory sometimes refuses to show.

As for your remarks about the status of the US military, yes I believe it needs to change, but I believe it's happening. The military is a significantly lighter force than even ten years ago, and the digitalized divisions are quickly coming. If anything, we need to reform the Navy and the Air Force. I'm glad the Navy is getting rid of parts of its huge aircraft carrier fleet, but that's not enough. They need to get smaller ships, and work much closer with the Marines. The Air Force also needs to quit its habit of new and expensive planes. I don't mind them getting their new F/A 22 Raptors, and I don't mind their fixed-wing designs, but they are getting way too many. They need to invest more in UAVs and plane security, rather than periodically replacing their massive fleet of bombers and fighters. Now, thank you for reading this long, and incredibally boring post.

These mass communications, however, may also be a bouy for American power into the 21st century.

They may indeed. No country has ever risen to prominence given such raw power before or under such world scruitiny. If we can successfully harness that and bend it to our favor, the very thing that is questioning our existance may be made to support our continued expansion. It's a brand new paradigm and I don't think anyone is quite sure how it's going to play out. Should be interesting to see, though.


I'm very curious to hear from people such as yourself, however, how America's grasp has exceeded its reach. I have a few ideas about why, but I'm just interested to hear from you.

Well, to be fair, I'm not sure we have. The argument is based on one that I've shot back at general US detractors who claim we're not only losing our grip, but doing so more bloodthirstily or visciously than any other power that's risen to prominence. For all it's detractors, I think the U.S. still represents a major force that can dominate the world stage. The way it chooses to execute that dominance, I believe, will be the fundamental measure of how long it continues to have it.

Certain indicators seem to point to a need for adjustment. While we have military superiority, we are slowly learning just how unwieldy that is in the face of lightening guerilla attacks and terrorisim. The problem in swatting a fly with a Buick is that, while it'll get the job done if it connects, the fly is always going to be faster and more agile. We're still existing in the mentality that because we have more guns, bombs and ammo, we will prevail in any conflict. Until we change that approach, we're digging our own grave as those who conspire against us see and utilize our weaknesses.

The U.S. has the potential to keep it's power base strong and intact for many years to come, but it will have to be through more insideous collaboration and less naked aggression. Today, more than ever before, the war for the hearts and minds is prominant. With mass communication and unpredented access both to information and opinion and with it's prominance in the areas of advertising, P.R., spin and political illusion, the U.S. could win this war and neatly circumvent anyone wanting to stand against it's vision by making them not want to in the first place. However, our current strategy of "might makes right" clearly weakens this and creates more enemies than it pacifies.

Someone in another thread said the next world war will be in space. I disagree. The next world war will be in the mind's of the world's citizens and it's currently being waged, like it or not. Right now, we're losing, but we don't have to. The question is, will those in power realize that a gentle touch exercised directly on people's thoughts is more powerful than any cluster bomb and utilize that? The best way to win a war is to never fight it in the first place and the easiest and most long-lasting way to secure that is to not make people want to fight you and willingly see the advantages presented by your rule.
I don't feel that we are loosing this war completely. We always hear that Europe and the Middle East are not fans of the US. What we never hear is the opinion from the third world. The Ivory Coast, the Phillipines, China, and many, many other countries have the majority of their people expressing a favorable opinion of the US. Even Russia is mostly favorable of the US, if not for our politics.
The problem is, however, that with the exception of China, these places don't have the adequate communications. It's why they need to be developed, and in my mindset, it's why globalization helps quite a bit for this "war" on hearts and minds.
The reason, however, that Europe and the Middle East hate us is because many American leaders feel that they're more and more irrelevant. The Middle East will capitulate once we don't need their oil (and I'm confident that is only a few decades away), but Europe, for a list of reasons, will become an insignificant cul de sac of the world. Perhaps they won't be less powerful than today, but as Spherical Objects pointed out, they'll decline relatively, most likely to the US, and especially Asia.
We can, and are, harnessing this power. There are a whole bunch of reasons that our detractors get more of a voice than our admirers, but that doesn't stop our admirers from trading with us, and expanding our military. This "war" is being won, but the victory sometimes refuses to show.

As for your remarks about the status of the US military, yes I believe it needs to change, but I believe it's happening. The military is a significantly lighter force than even ten years ago, and the digitalized divisions are quickly coming. If anything, we need to reform the Navy and the Air Force. I'm glad the Navy is getting rid of parts of its huge aircraft carrier fleet, but that's not enough. They need to get smaller ships, and work much closer with the Marines. The Air Force also needs to quit its habit of new and expensive planes. I don't mind them getting their new F/A 22 Raptors, and I don't mind their fixed-wing designs, but they are getting way too many. They need to invest more in UAVs and plane security, rather than periodically replacing their massive fleet of bombers and fighters. Now, thank you for reading this long, and incredibally boring post.

Not really. Reagan made a bad defecit which Bush continued. Clinton Fixed it. Bush has Taken things to back to the way they were, couldnt there be another clinton?

Oh, wait? LOL>.

Not really. Reagan made a bad defecit which Bush continued. Clinton Fixed it. Bush has Taken things to back to the way they were, couldnt there be another clinton?

Oh, wait? LOL>.

Newt Gingrich fixed it, not Clinton. Just like Tip O'Neil forced the continuation of wasteful programs Reagan didn't want to continue.

Not really. Reagan made a bad defecit which Bush continued. Clinton Fixed it. Bush has Taken things to back to the way they were, couldnt there be another clinton?

Oh, wait? LOL>.

Newt Gingrich fixed it, not Clinton. Just like Tip O'Neil forced the continuation of wasteful programs Reagan didn't want to continue.

Newt Gingrich? Wow, that's a name I haven't heard in awhile.

Wow. I guess Democrats cant do anything right, Huh?
Well If it wasnt Clinton then It was his Underlings. Just like George Bush Is controlled by his.

Wow. I guess Democrats cant do anything right, Huh?
Well If it wasnt Clinton then It was his Underlings. Just like George Bush Is controlled by his.

Americans will never be able to pay off the US debt which reaches into the trillions!

And, we never would be able to pay it off under anyone else either. The point of large debts, such as this, is that they grow, because a country can never make enough in the modern world to pay it back.

It's not Bush's fault, I can't believe I'm saying that, but it's the entire whole of the American government's fault from the beginning of the US.

[

We always hear that Europe and the Middle East are not fans of the US. What we never hear is the opinion from the third world. The Ivory Coast, the Phillipines, China, and many, many other countries have the majority of their people expressing a favorable opinion of the US. Even Russia is mostly favorable of the US, if not for our politics.

Europe, for a list of reasons, will become an insignificant cul de sac of the world. Perhaps they won't be less powerful than today, but as Spherical Objects pointed out, they'll decline relatively, most likely to the US, and especially Asia.


we need to reform the Navy and the Air Force. I'm glad the Navy is getting rid of parts of its huge aircraft carrier fleet, but that's not enough. They need to get smaller ships, and work much closer with the Marines. The Air Force also needs to quit its habit of new and expensive planes. I don't mind them getting their new F/A 22 Raptors, and I don't mind their fixed-wing designs, but they are getting way too many. They need to invest more in UAVs and plane security, rather than periodically replacing their massive fleet of bombers and fighters. Now, thank you for reading this long, and incredibally boring post.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Okay, I'm not sure what your reasoning is for thinking that Europe will become an 'insignificant cul-de-sac'. I think that's nonsense, Europe has all the brains it needs for expansion. But, as you rightly refered to my comment about the rise and fall of powers, we cannot forsee the future.
I also agree that America needs to down-size its military for the 21st century. That certainly doesn't mean a weaker force, it means a more relevent and dynamic one, ready for any eventuality. Should the unthinkable happen, and a large scale war break out, the US has all the capacity it needs to build what it needs, and quickly. More than any other nation. Therein lies its true strength.
To turn to your comments regarding Europe and the Middle East 'hating' America. You're just plain wrong. Europe has a deep and abiding love for America and the memory of the US in two world wars is still strong here. Neither do we forget that the US probably saved mainland Europe from Soviet invasion. Nor are we 'jealous' of America, as I seem to have read a lot about. We are wealthy and have a good standard of life. Here, I'm refering to Western Europe. Central and Eastern Europe are catching up fast. And remember, we don't forget that America is responsible for Europes freedom.

What you regard as Europes 'hatred' for America is actually the resentment of US politicians, especially the current president. I have said this so often, after 9/11 there was an outpouring of sympathy and a 'oneness' with America. For God's sake the Stars & Stripes was played in Buckingham Palace for the first time in history. Again, and again, and again, I say that Bush has pissed away all that affection and respect by riding rough-shod over the international community. France and others were despised for having the sheer cheek of not agreeing with the US. Freedom Fries for Christ's sake. Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, the plain truth is that Bush has alienated you from most of the rest of us. Not the people, the politicians. You should try reading some Euro on-line papers and after seeing through the quite legitimate criticism, you'll find no 'hatred' for the American people. Only today, at the D-Day commeration, Chirac lauded American values and the contribution it has made to Europe and the world at large. As for the Middle East, I don't think you have to be an Einstein to understand why the US is so reviled by so many Arab nations.

[

We always hear that Europe and the Middle East are not fans of the US. What we never hear is the opinion from the third world. The Ivory Coast, the Phillipines, China, and many, many other countries have the majority of their people expressing a favorable opinion of the US. Even Russia is mostly favorable of the US, if not for our politics.

Europe, for a list of reasons, will become an insignificant cul de sac of the world. Perhaps they won't be less powerful than today, but as Spherical Objects pointed out, they'll decline relatively, most likely to the US, and especially Asia.


we need to reform the Navy and the Air Force. I'm glad the Navy is getting rid of parts of its huge aircraft carrier fleet, but that's not enough. They need to get smaller ships, and work much closer with the Marines. The Air Force also needs to quit its habit of new and expensive planes. I don't mind them getting their new F/A 22 Raptors, and I don't mind their fixed-wing designs, but they are getting way too many. They need to invest more in UAVs and plane security, rather than periodically replacing their massive fleet of bombers and fighters. Now, thank you for reading this long, and incredibally boring post.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Okay, I'm not sure what your reasoning is for thinking that Europe will become an 'insignificant cul-de-sac'. I think that's nonsense, Europe has all the brains it needs for expansion. But, as you rightly refered to my comment about the rise and fall of powers, we cannot forsee the future.
I also agree that America needs to down-size its military for the 21st century. That certainly doesn't mean a weaker force, it means a more relevent and dynamic one, ready for any eventuality. Should the unthinkable happen, and a large scale war break out, the US has all the capacity it needs to build what it needs, and quickly. More than any other nation. Therein lies its true strength.
To turn to your comments regarding Europe and the Middle East 'hating' America. You're just plain wrong. Europe has a deep and abiding love for America and the memory of the US in two world wars is still strong here. Neither do we forget that the US probably saved mainland Europe from Soviet invasion. Nor are we 'jealous' of America, as I seem to have read a lot about. We are wealthy and have a good standard of life. Here, I'm refering to Western Europe. Central and Eastern Europe are catching up fast. And remember, we don't forget that America is responsible for Europes freedom.

What you regard as Europes 'hatred' for America is actually the resentment of US politicians, especially the current president. I have said this so often, after 9/11 there was an outpouring of sympathy and a 'oneness' with America. For God's sake the Stars & Stripes was played in Buckingham Palace for the first time in history. Again, and again, and again, I say that Bush has pissed away all that affection and respect by riding rough-shod over the international community. France and others were despised for having the sheer cheek of not agreeing with the US. Freedom Fries for Christ's sake. Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, the plain truth is that Bush has alienated you from most of the rest of us. Not the people, the politicians. You should try reading some Euro on-line papers and after seeing through the quite legitimate criticism, you'll find no 'hatred' for the American people. Only today, at the D-Day commeration, Chirac lauded American values and the contribution it has made to Europe and the world at large. As for the Middle East, I don't think you have to be an Einstein to understand why the US is so reviled by so many Arab nations.
Well, I have my reasons or believing that Europe may gradually fade. For example, there's a rapidly aging population, a relatively flat economy, but most of all, an overall lack of unity. All European nations know that the only way to truely rival the US and Asian powers is to have a unified continent, but no one seems to be leaping for the idea. But I doubt it'll mean that Europeans are homeless and start to live on the streets. And yes, I know why the Arabs hate us, but less face it, there was always resentment for us, to one degree or another. It increased after the fall of the USSR, as the US was the biggest, richest kid in the neighborhood.

Anyhow, European resentment for the US runs far deeper than politics. It may not be as present in the UK, but it's especially prevelant in France. To protest a McDonald's, for example, a sheep farmer drove his tractor into the local McDonald's. Starbucks isn't well recieved, either. This may sound trivial, but most everywhere else in the world, these places can't open fast enough. Not in Europe. France is the most culturally independent of the nations, and is the source of anti-American resentment. It merely accelarated because of our politics, but it was always our culture as well. For a long time, France has been the engine driving resentment for American culture, spreading throughout the UK, Germany, and Spain. Now, with the possible exception of Italy, it's everywhere in Western Europe and Scandanavia. Central and Eastern Europe tend to be more immune to this sort of thing.

[
Well, I have my reasons or believing that Europe may gradually fade. For example, there's a rapidly aging population, a relatively flat economy, but most of all, an overall lack of unity. All European nations know that the only way to truely rival the US and Asian powers is to have a unified continent, but no one seems to be leaping for the idea. But I doubt it'll mean that Europeans are homeless and start to live on the streets. And yes, I know why the Arabs hate us, but less face it, there was always resentment for us, to one degree or another. It increased after the fall of the USSR, as the US was the biggest, richest kid in the neighborhood.

Anyhow, European resentment for the US runs far deeper than politics. It may not be as present in the UK, but it's especially prevelant in France. To protest a McDonald's, for example, a sheep farmer drove his tractor into

the local McDonald's. Starbucks isn't well recieved, either. This may sound trivial, but most everywhere else in the world, these places can't open fast enough. Not in Europe. France is the most culturally independent of the nations, and is the source of anti-American resentment. It merely accelarated because of our politics, but it was always our culture as well. For a long time, France has been the engine driving resentment for American culture, spreading throughout the UK, Germany, and Spain. Now, with the possible exception of Italy, it's everywhere in Western Europe and Scandanavia. Central and Eastern Europe tend to be more immune to this sort of thing. http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

I'm afraid that's mostly bollocks. I repeat, assuming Europe remains united, and all the evidence, despite the rants of Euro-skeptics, is that Europe is enlarging and slowly, falteringly, deepening in its unity. Assuming that, do you honestly believe that an entity contaning the British, Germans, French, Italians, Spanish, Dutch, Poland and the rest (25 in all) will become, in your words, 'an irrelevent cul-de-sac'? I think you're displaying what you claim to hate, an 'anti', in your case anti-Europeanism. Despite your claims, Europe is growing ever stronger economically in the long term. Already, if the political will was there (and it isn't) Europe could build a military as powerful and technologically advanced as the US. I say that because I see the military aspect dragged into any conversation regarding the US v the rest. You may even see Russia admitted into the EU eventually, following the Ukraine.
Anyway, enough of useless chest-thumping.
Has it ever crossed your mind that some Europeans simply prefer their existing culture to yours, as opposed to 'hating' it merely because it's American? You cite the French. The French are proud of their unique and superb food. Some French people are quite happy to munch on a McDonalds, others prefer the excellent traditional food. Why do you regard that as anti-American? You seem quite anti-French. Is that because you don't like frogs legs or snails? Pretty stupid thinking really. Let me try and give you another example of why you're very wrong in believing Europe is so anti-American as opposed to anti-Bush. Continental America is vast, and because of that most.....most Americans are quite insular. There's so much going on in the States that European news is often ignored, and understandably so. Europe is also vast, it 'feels' smaller because we talk about England or France or Germany etc. Due to the 'carved up' nature (thus far) of Europe, we are far more interested in foreign news than the average American. To a German, news from America is as important as news from Britain for example. So, when a film star runs for governor of california it is of interest to Europeans, even though it doesn't affect our lives. Now, we in Europe have a very ancient culture and despite Starbucks it is very much alive and thriving, thank you very much.
Like the American 'mind-set', we on the whole have a Euro 'mind-set'. Most Euros cannot understand why Arnie was so popular and got the vote. That's nothing to do with anti-Americanism, it's the way we are. We have different, not better, different standards for our politicians. Your American 'mind-set' can't comprehend why some Euros are not attracted to some American culture. It's not bloody anti anything in particular. We just prefer most of our Euro culture. Can you not accept that we think differently to you? Europe and the US have long been friends and allies. In this ever increasingly globalised world we will need each others support even more. I hope that the Bush era is merely a hiatus in our relationship and Americans won't allow themselves to be drawn into the dangerous belief that Europe is an enemy and not a friendly rival.

But hopefully the Bush tax cuts will stimulate the economy. The job growth has been stunning over the past month also.
If this is true, why is it that the unemployment remains seized at 5.6%?

[Applauds SO] Well said! :D

But hopefully the Bush tax cuts will stimulate the economy. The job growth has been stunning over the past month also.
If this is true, why is it that the unemployment remains seized at 5.6%?


It's 5.4% last time i checked.

But hopefully the Bush tax cuts will stimulate the economy. The job growth has been stunning over the past month also.
If this is true, why is it that the unemployment remains seized at 5.6%?


It's 5.4% last time i checked.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

The number of unemployed persons was essentially unchanged at 8.2 million in May, and the unemployment rate held at 5.6 percent. The unemployment rate has been either 5.6 or 5.7 percent in each month since December 2003.

But hopefully the Bush tax cuts will stimulate the economy. The job growth has been stunning over the past month also.
If this is true, why is it that the unemployment remains seized at 5.6%?


It's 5.4% last time i checked.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

The number of unemployed persons was essentially unchanged at 8.2 million in May, and the unemployment rate held at 5.6 percent. The unemployment rate has been either 5.6 or 5.7 percent in each month since December 2003.

Can't win them all. :)

But hopefully the Bush tax cuts will stimulate the economy. The job growth has been stunning over the past month also.
If this is true, why is it that the unemployment remains seized at 5.6%?

5.6% unemployment is good compared to European unemployment and Canadian unemployment. I don't see how anyone could begrudge that figure.

US debt has risen far beyond the safe limit of 6% of GDP (GNP) and has widened under the Bush administration.

Americans will never be able to pay off the US debt which reaches into the trillions!

Will this result in a financial crisis in years to come? Could fiscal mismanagement since the Cold War era finally rear its ugly head and cause the economic downfall of the American Empire?

(NOTE: THE USA IS TECHNICALLY AN EMPIRE. THE TERM 'IMPERIALIST' REFERS TO THOSE WHO WOULD SEEK TO CONTROL AND ADMINISTER OTHERS ECONOMICALLY OR THROUGH SHEER MILITARY FORCE. THE USA HAS DONE BOTH. NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS THOUGH, JUST THOUGHT I WOULD CLARIFY THE FACTS BEFORE PEOPLE DENIED IT)
The United States is not an empire. If it was, Canada would be the 51st state.

USA blows.
Spoken like a true Democrat.

US debt has risen far beyond the safe limit of 6% of GDP (GNP) and has widened under the Bush administration.

Americans will never be able to pay off the US debt which reaches into the trillions!

Will this result in a financial crisis in years to come? Could fiscal mismanagement since the Cold War era finally rear its ugly head and cause the economic downfall of the American Empire?

(NOTE: THE USA IS TECHNICALLY AN EMPIRE. THE TERM 'IMPERIALIST' REFERS TO THOSE WHO WOULD SEEK TO CONTROL AND ADMINISTER OTHERS ECONOMICALLY OR THROUGH SHEER MILITARY FORCE. THE USA HAS DONE BOTH. NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS THOUGH, JUST THOUGHT I WOULD CLARIFY THE FACTS BEFORE PEOPLE DENIED IT)
The United States is not an empire. If it was, Canada would be the 51st state.

It is an Economic Empire. Imperialism refers to both economic and military domination. Besides, why Canada? The USA already controls Afghanistan and Iraq. (not a bad thing either)

We now seem to have several seperate debates going on in this thread, and i find both of them interesting.

Firstly the national debt idea, who ever stated correctly that its paying the intrest that matters is largley correct, which of course is something you cannot do if you are in permenaint budget defecit.

Countries budgets often as the UKs is go into a temporary defecit on the assumtion that the economy or revenue will imporve allowing it to go into credit again. The danger lies in running a continus defecit for a long period of time. I don't know how long the american budget has been in defecit, but assuming it was posotice under clinton and negative under bush. Then the defecit is of no majour importance, but if it continues throught the next five years off who evers rule (i'd prefer not bush but that just my opinion) it stays in defecit then thats a problem.

On to my second ecomonic question, histrocially when the birtish empire grew it was in an economic vacume, we where the ONLY people making the stuff we sold, so the primary purpose was to gain markets for our goods india being the prize in the regard. By the time the rest of the nations in europe at least had industralised we had already built a comanding lead. The lead then erroded through a combination of world events (wars) and lack of inovation in brisish industry alowing it to be out classed.

But the world is increasingly not becoming a vacume, india, chinna and to a lesser extent south america are no longer entrily markets the manufacture alot of their own goods hence reduced makerket area. We are now left with africa as the only no producing market, even that is starting to fade as the continent graduall fades from colonially imposed violence.

As others have noted manufactuing industries are leaving europe and the united states to labour cheeper areas, so what are the economies of our nation living on. The answer i suspect lies in two things one is invoation, the second is what is called the invidible empire. The empire of banks and investment companies who pay for all these new factories and developments and make money that way.

To bring all this back to a point national debits are acceptable providing the econmany continues to grow, but this cannot go on indefinatly so the worry is when the world economy does become increasingly slughish what do you do THEN about your national debt.

Oh on a seperate point the aging ecomonay point, the solution i'm afraid for world happiniess is not for those contries to have more children, but let younger workers in from other countries. If everyone on the planet should have a good standard of living the only way to achive this while leaving the planet intact is to reduced the number of people 6 billion is unsustainable, it is only because the vast majourity of us are very poor that we get buy now, raise them all to a european standard of living (for heavns sake no US which is even more enviromentally wastefull) is currently imposible, imageing to pic a current example the effect on oil prices, the jump now being for a large part due to china.


On to the other issue in this depadte that of american and european relations praise to the person who mentioned it is the amircan politicains we mostly dislike, not nessacarily the people themeselves (though their are exemptions). Also for well said for the point on the new media, if you have ever whathced and american news channel say fox, you get very little forgein news the americans are NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN (i.e. i don't count iraq) on a standard UK one says BBC news 24 a large chunk of that is forgien even if were not involved.

As a point of adivce to both sides, thier are certain thing both US and europe find dear to thier hearts, not pissing on them is a good idea. A good example was france being called a non imporatant miltrary power. France has always had pride in its military and still justifiably does. The point being thier is a difference between saying we disagree and then neadlessly pissing a nation off by trampling on the ideas it hold pride in. A silly counter example would be something like i don't think we should join the trade agreement cause all americans are fat, some elements of truth perhaps but neadlessly agressive.

The major problem i have with the current brand of US and UK politicans is thier habit of seeing issue in black and white, this is right so we must do this. While this is sometimes true, it is not most of the time, just because something is inconcevable to you does not means it is not a good idea to someone else, thier is sadly few universal rules we can agree on.


few i'll stop now before it gets even longer!

But hopefully the Bush tax cuts will stimulate the economy. The job growth has been stunning over the past month also.
If this is true, why is it that the unemployment remains seized at 5.6%?


It's 5.4% last time i checked.

Check again. Unemployment held steady at 5.6% in May in the U.S. a sign that, even though new jobs were added, they aren't being added in sufficient quantity or quality to solve the problem. Additionally, remember that this number (straight from the federal government) only counts those unemployed still receiving benefits. Many have been out of work so long that their benefits have run out. The actual number of unemployed, both with and without benefits, runs around 8.2 million.

[
Well, I have my reasons or believing that Europe may gradually fade. For example, there's a rapidly aging population, a relatively flat economy, but most of all, an overall lack of unity. All European nations know that the only way to truely rival the US and Asian powers is to have a unified continent, but no one seems to be leaping for the idea. But I doubt it'll mean that Europeans are homeless and start to live on the streets. And yes, I know why the Arabs hate us, but less face it, there was always resentment for us, to one degree or another. It increased after the fall of the USSR, as the US was the biggest, richest kid in the neighborhood.

Anyhow, European resentment for the US runs far deeper than politics. It may not be as present in the UK, but it's especially prevelant in France. To protest a McDonald's, for example, a sheep farmer drove his tractor into

the local McDonald's. Starbucks isn't well recieved, either. This may sound trivial, but most everywhere else in the world, these places can't open fast enough. Not in Europe. France is the most culturally independent of the nations, and is the source of anti-American resentment. It merely accelarated because of our politics, but it was always our culture as well. For a long time, France has been the engine driving resentment for American culture, spreading throughout the UK, Germany, and Spain. Now, with the possible exception of Italy, it's everywhere in Western Europe and Scandanavia. Central and Eastern Europe tend to be more immune to this sort of thing. http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

I'm afraid that's mostly bollocks. I repeat, assuming Europe remains united, and all the evidence, despite the rants of Euro-skeptics, is that Europe is enlarging and slowly, falteringly, deepening in its unity. Assuming that, do you honestly believe that an entity contaning the British, Germans, French, Italians, Spanish, Dutch, Poland and the rest (25 in all) will become, in your words, 'an irrelevent cul-de-sac'? I think you're displaying what you claim to hate, an 'anti', in your case anti-Europeanism. Despite your claims, Europe is growing ever stronger economically in the long term. Already, if the political will was there (and it isn't) Europe could build a military as powerful and technologically advanced as the US. I say that because I see the military aspect dragged into any conversation regarding the US v the rest. You may even see Russia admitted into the EU eventually, following the Ukraine.
Anyway, enough of useless chest-thumping.
Has it ever crossed your mind that some Europeans simply prefer their existing culture to yours, as opposed to 'hating' it merely because it's American? You cite the French. The French are proud of their unique and superb food. Some French people are quite happy to munch on a McDonalds, others prefer the excellent traditional food. Why do you regard that as anti-American? You seem quite anti-French. Is that because you don't like frogs legs or snails? Pretty stupid thinking really. Let me try and give you another example of why you're very wrong in believing Europe is so anti-American as opposed to anti-Bush. Continental America is vast, and because of that most.....most Americans are quite insular. There's so much going on in the States that European news is often ignored, and understandably so. Europe is also vast, it 'feels' smaller because we talk about England or France or Germany etc. Due to the 'carved up' nature (thus far) of Europe, we are far more interested in foreign news than the average American. To a German, news from America is as important as news from Britain for example. So, when a film star runs for governor of california it is of interest to Europeans, even though it doesn't affect our lives. Now, we in Europe have a very ancient culture and despite Starbucks it is very much alive and thriving, thank you very much.
Like the American 'mind-set', we on the whole have a Euro 'mind-set'. Most Euros cannot understand why Arnie was so popular and got the vote. That's nothing to do with anti-Americanism, it's the way we are. We have different, not better, different standards for our politicians. Your American 'mind-set' can't comprehend why some Euros are not attracted to some American culture. It's not bloody anti anything in particular. We just prefer most of our Euro culture. Can you not accept that we think differently to you? Europe and the US have long been friends and allies. In this ever increasingly globalised world we will need each others support even more. I hope that the Bush era is merely a hiatus in our relationship and Americans won't allow themselves to be drawn into the dangerous belief that Europe is an enemy and not a friendly rival.
I'll get back to my reasons about a European decline later, but first, let me address the cultural issue.
It has occured to me that not everyone will like US culture. However, I'm wondering why that is. Asia and Russia have embrassed it. The third world has encorporated it into their culture. Even the Middle East has traces. While a kid in Saudi Arabia may wear an Osama bin Laden shirt, he is also wearing a Yankees cap.
So, what's the resistence? It's not just passive resistence, it's violent. You see, more than anything else, a culture embodies a regional identity. I think Europe, most especially France, sees it as a threat. I'm not anti French. I feel the French are amoral and too self-absorbed, but I see them merely as misguided. Lost souls if you will. Anyhow, the French citizens have been on an active campaign to stop any US influences. Only Frenchmen drive tractors into McDonald’s. Only Frenchmen spray-paint US companies’ ads, which they see as the embodiement of capitalism.
They are resisting unlike any other country. I respect the fact that France has a rich culture, but they need to wake up. The international blending of cultures, even if it is too generous to US culture, is here. They can’t keep their heads in the sand forever. They need to accept change, and preserve what they have. They’re doing a good job at that already, preserving their precious artwork in fortress museums. Now, they need to find ways to build off that heritage. Whether or not I’m anti-French, btw, is strictly the judgement of the reader.

Now, why do I think Europe may fade? The reasons above are my primary concern. The aging especially gets me. It wouldn’t be so bad, if it weren’t for such a generous social system provided by most every European nation. Universal healthcare, government pensions, and other programs would put the governments into huge deficits. It’s even worse, considering that the elderly in Europe will soon outnumber the work force. It’ll force the governments to slash benefits, raise taxes, and raise the retirement age. Immigration won’t help, as it is only helping to grow the UK and France. That’s why I’m so concerned that Europe may be irrelevant compared with the Americas and Asia, and therefore, that corner of the world may be in it’s twilight.

But hopefully the Bush tax cuts will stimulate the economy. The job growth has been stunning over the past month also.
If this is true, why is it that the unemployment remains seized at 5.6%?

5.6% unemployment is good compared to European unemployment and Canadian unemployment. I don't see how anyone could begrudge that figure.

The unemployment figure doesn't begin to tell the whole truth, such as......


The number of persons who were marginally attached to the labor force was 1.5 million in May, about the same as a year earlier. (Data are not season-ally adjusted.) These individuals wanted and were available to work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed, however, because they did not actively search for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.

There were 476,000 discouraged workers in May, also about the same as a year earlier. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, were not currently looking for work specifically because they believed no jobs were available for them. The other 1.1 million margin-ally attached had not searched for work for reasons such as school or family responsibilities.

In regards to Canadian unemployment, the reporting is vastly different and do not encompass other factors, that the US includes as employment.

Did you know that if a person works only 1 hour in a week in the US, that person is considered employed. Also I believe that self employed people who have no work for a particular week are also considered as being employed. These figures truly skew the true unemployment picture in the US.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

So the true unemployment picture could be much worse when considering these factors.

I am aware of these factors and I often point similar agruments out regarding Australia's hidden unemployment figures.

But, here we have award wages and greater regulations. I hear American wages can be as low as $2.50 an hour. Clearly it is a lot worse in the States.

You are quite right in what you've said.