NationStates Jolt Archive

Hoping to get some thoughts on the status of the United States as the Hegemonic State of the world.. Is this still the case? And if so, do you feel America's status as the world power is declining, staying the same, or increasing?

Well, our economy is strong and still makes up 23% of the world economy. We also don't have the same degree of demographic problems as the EU or Japan, and US companies are leaders in their fields. We also have close ties to the new powerhouse, India, and are on good terms with its lesser counterpart China. If we can push through some comprehensive free trade treaties and liberalize our economy some more, we'll be set.

From an economic standpoint, the US is still quite powerful. In the future, less so but for now we're still strong. And we're definitely not in decline, since this economy's grown more and more resilient to things that would have sunk us in to recession even only a decade ago.

Although at some point the question will have to be answered what the US will be in the future.
With everyone else, or against everyone else?

EDIT: And again, just cuz I spent so much time on it back in the day - my vision for the future (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9057853&postcount=56)

Hoping to get some thoughts on the status of the United States as the Hegemonic State of the world.. Is this still the case? And if so, do you feel America's status as the world power is declining, staying the same, or increasing?
I actually think it's decreasing. There is more overt resistance to certain policies...or (in the case of some Western countries) more rivalry. Economically, the US is still strong, but economies of the South are gaining ground and in some cases, directly competing with the US (especially in terms of outsourcing, which is good for US companies, and not so good for US workers). Pre 9-11, anti-US sentiment in Canada was pretty low-level...now ever old timers seem to hold it, despite being firm supporters of US activities in Latin America and elsewhere a couple of decades back. I think it's inevitable that the US is going to be sharing the global stage with other nations...either as allies or rivals. Now I'm more talking about political hegemony here...not really economic.

Although at some point the question will have to be answered what the US will be in the future.
With everyone else, or against everyone else?

We're going to be with. Globalization is just too excellent an opportunity for even the most dumbass politicians to ignore. Personally, I think some of Bush's actions are a kind of last-ditch unilateralism...trying to get one last gasp in before we start fully integrating in to a world economy.

Hoping to get some thoughts on the status of the United States as the Hegemonic State of the world.. Is this still the case? And if so, do you feel America's status as the world power is declining, staying the same, or increasing?
I don't forsee any decline in the ability of the US to project influence over other states or regions of the world. As a matter of fact, I see this ability as increasing geometrically over the coming years.

The only things I know of which could slow or reverse this process are massive natural disasters or some dread epidemic. On a scale necessary to reverse US influence such natural disasters or epidemics would also affect the rest of the world, so the net result would most likely be a return to regionalism around the world.

Economically, the US is still strong, but economies of the South are gaining ground and in some cases, directly competing with the US (especially in terms of outsourcing, which is good for US companies, and not so good for US workers)..

Actually, it can be. Those Indian IT workers are starting their own companies, and those companies are doing increasingly large amounts of hiring in the US as they expand outside of India. In many ways, outsourcing is planting the seeds for a global economy, one in which high-quality US workers will do very well.

Thankfully, the things being outsourced now are the ones that can lead to foreign entrepreneurship, with the result being more jobs here. Companies like Honda and Toyota are already hiring by the tens of thousands here, and more are on the way from India.

In the future I would like to see the dissolution of borders. A true international state. Not the UN, but a true world government. Divisions only cause war. No divisions, no war.

In the future I would like to see the dissolution of borders. A true international state. Not the UN, but a true world government. Divisions only cause war. No divisions, no war.

Globalization will hopefully lead to such a change, as the need for binding international legislation to regulate the economy becomes necessary.

I don't forsee any decline in the ability of the US to project influence over other states or regions of the world. As a matter of fact, I see this ability as increasing geometrically over the coming years.

The only things I know of which could slow or reverse this process are massive natural disasters or some dread epidemic. On a scale necessary to reverse US influence such natural disasters or epidemics would also affect the rest of the world, so the net result would most likely be a return to regionalism around the world.

Well... I reckon you ought to look into your crystal balls (thank god for health insurance, huh?) again! Nothing lasts forever, not even the US' ability to project influence at the level it currently does.

America policed the free world in the cold war; but policing is by consent. The cushy (relatively speaking) ride America got during that war (politically and economically) no longer applies, and gratitude has a really short shelf lifve in politics. Look at the anti-Americanism that's been unleashed around the free world since the 'reason-to-kowtow-to-our-saviours-the-Americans' evaporated.

Terrorism isn't a thing you can defend against globally, but need local protection against - that'll add to the growing regionalisation, and won't replace the USSR as a need-to-band-tightly-with-the-USA. The EU as it stands represents the first fledging steps of a european great power, and as such it'll not really get anywhere in this incarnation - by the 2nd or 3rd, even 4th, though, it'll likely reprsent a great power in my bit of the world. Similar movements will likely take place in China, India, even Russia - local great powers which the USA will be unable to 'influence' to the extent it currently enjoys.

Of course, these processes'll take at least another 100 years or so before we see them clearly, but I think that's the most likely outcome by the 22nd century.

In the future I would like to see the dissolution of borders. A true international state. Not the UN, but a true world government. Divisions only cause war. No divisions, no war.
That's a bit overly optomistic. There are still people the world over who would still choose to indulge themselves in civil wars and revolutions.

Globalization will bring about death.

Right now the US and the UK control the process of globalization and are driving the world toward it because they will be in control of any new world order.

China and Russia are not stupid and they see this, they are goin to move towards a stronger position so when the world government comes around they'll have a stronger position in the new order.


Russia in Chechnya and former Soviet States so it can keep control over the oil in those states. The US and other Western states had a plan to build an oil line around Russia cutting Russia out and Russia is now moving towards holding its sphere of influence.


China and its position on Taiwan is not new, but it is moving towards a more violent position against Taiwan because it needs to Taiwanesse industry to make it a deffinate powerhouse so it will have a good foothold in the new world order.


Now what will world order bring? Dictatorship. The UN plans to keep the GA get rid of the security councils permanent members and veto votes, meaning weaker nations will be able to hijack the security council, and the nations with the real firepower won't have control like they should. The governing body for the people will be NGO's. NGO's will be mostly consisting of enviromental groups like FOE, ELF, ALF, Seirra Club, ect. The UN plans to bring about global government through a resolution called the Bio-Diversity Resolution. This Resolution splits the world into 10 regions to be governed militarily and economically. These regions will then be split up into small "islands" where people can live, and these islands will be surrounded by "seas" of land which will not be opened for use by human beings.

Global governance will bring about the end of competition and by default, the end of improvement of human life.

Who will really be in charge of the global government? World elitists, and CEO's of international corporations. The UN will have to derive its money from these corporations, and the corporations will be able to pull funding from the GA. The NGO's will also be under control of the corporations since they will rely on donations. "Those who own the country, should rule the country!"-John Marshall

What will the new world look like? We will have extreme power outages because power plants will not be able to expand, but the demands on these plants will increase (california). Mikhial Gorbachev, one of the main leaders pushing for Global Government, says that California is the model state of what the global government will look like.

Elgesh']Nothing lasts forever, not even the US' ability to project influence at the level it currently does.
True. Barring natural disasters, the US will most likely continue to project great influence until such time as globalization forces something beyond regionalism on the entire world. It's unlikely that politicians in any country will allow international corporations and financiers to dictate international rules by fiat, which is exactly what will happen if things continue on their current course.

I don't forsee any decline in the ability of the US to project influence over other states or regions of the world. As a matter of fact, I see this ability as increasing geometrically over the coming years.

The only things I know of which could slow or reverse this process are massive natural disasters or some dread epidemic. On a scale necessary to reverse US influence such natural disasters or epidemics would also affect the rest of the world, so the net result would most likely be a return to regionalism around the world.

I think you hit it pretty much right on the head, as the more becomes more reliant on multinational corporations, even the opening of some borders, it will be very hard for countries to shift positions of dominance. Thus, even a natural disaster that severely hurt the US economy would have an externality across the rest of the world as well, meaning the US keeps its position as the hegemon.

Slightly different topic, I am interested by regional powers, like Germany in Europe, or Nigeria in Africa, countries that look like they could be regional powers for generations to come.

[QUOTE=Droskianishk] snip QUOTE]

In an alutrustic way of thinking. A world government should be to the benefit of everyone. Captialism is not to the benefit of everyone and not a good model to base a world government off of. But it seems to few agree with my thinking. And more I watch the news (which is rare now, to depressing) the more I think we should just destroy ourselves and let the world start over.

True. Barring natural disasters, the US will most likely continue to project great influence until such time as globalization forces something beyond regionalism on the entire world. It's unlikely that politicians in any country will allow international corporations and financiers to dictate international rules by fiat, which is exactly what will happen if things continue on their current course.

I'd sort of miss not having the US around as the world's safety net... but speaking selfishly, it'd give us in Europe - _especially_ the UK - a _point_ to our existence again if the regionalisation of power thing advances. At the moment, we just suck, neither one thing nor the other!

Elgesh']I'd sort of miss not having the US around as the world's safety net... but speaking selfishly, it'd give us in Europe - _especially_ the UK - a _point_ to our existence again if the regionalisation of power thing advances. At the moment, we just suck, neither one thing nor the other!
I just hope and pray, for all our children's sakes, that things don't get too dicy when all these changes are taking place.

I just hope and pray, for all our children's sakes, that things don't get too dicy when all these changes are taking place.

Er... good?

edit: Sorry, nae offence, pal, just seemed a bit of a non-sequiter!

The US will eventually (within in the next three to five decades) lose its current world standing and power projection. Traditionally the states have always been isolationist and stayed out of world affairs. It took FDR telling people in his campaign speeches that he wouldn't send their boys off to die 'in a foreign war' to get him elected for his last term and then BLAM Japan attacks and its off to war.
The victories in Europe and the Pacific Theatre changed that attitude. Americans went from a don't want to know stance to a you can't touch us one almost overnight. The Marshall Plan was the real turning point as it commited US armed forces to defending West Berlin and West Germany and standing against Communist Russia. But after Vietnam the US army slapped a ten to one ratio on any engagement (the US has to have ten times as many assets on the ground as the enemy before any engagement) so that requires a level of man power that can't be sustained indefinatly. Couple that to the sentiment that American boys shouldn't be dying half way around the world for some one else and its not hard to see that the US will shift back in popular opinion to isolationism.

The EU on the other hand is a farce. It started as a fine and noble concept, like the UN, but both have become corrupt beaurocracies that have little relation to real government. (The EU legislated the shape of a banana for Gods sake.) Both organisations need to be reformed or simply consigned to the past and a new approach taken at this time. I doubt a true world government will ever come to pass, and if it does it won't be a democracy, as that isn't practical. Some kind of federalised representative effort maybe? Or we could just go back to what works... empire! Based on the Roman model, hell they didn't even have e-mail and still ruled nearly half the known world of the time.

Elgesh']Er... good?
Heh! Well, if history is any indication, the decline and fall of empire almost always results in massive dislocation, starvation, poverty, disease and death. It's well said that "he who has children gives hostages to fate." However, I happen to believe that the other option is worse: "He who has no children has no stake in the future."

... the US will shift back in popular opinion to isolationism.

... [The Romans ] didn't even have e-mail and still ruled nearly half the known world of the time.
LOL! Yes, children, there was a time before the internet when we actually had to send messages by courier. :D

The US has swung back and forth on that isolationism/internationalism swing more times than I can remember. However, I no longer see isolationism as an option for anyone. We're all in this together, what with a world economy well underway, and I don't think that can be changed.

Heh! Well, if history is any indication, the decline and fall of empire almost always results in massive dislocation, starvation, poverty, disease and death. It's well said that "he who has children gives hostages to fate." However, I happen to believe that the other option is worse: "He who has no children has no stake in the future."

Aye, but populations face that all the time... Oh well, I'm not disagreeing with you at all, it just sounds a funny thing to say, to me! ;)

Imperial collapse = the crapness? Very true, historically. But more recently, what was the experience of the Austro-Hungarian Empire's peoples, or the British Empire as a whole after the second world war, and how are the former Soviet States doing as a whole? (I'm not offering them as definitive examples, I'm literally just wondering - not informed enough about them to judge).

I don't actually think, or rather, can't think _of_, an empire that had no real occupied foreign countries; America's an Empire without Imperial Dominons, after all! Is there a helpful analogy from history for the decline of an empire that important without occupied territory to grant self-goverance to, or will it be a bit of a first

Great topic... bump bump

In an alutrustic way of thinking. A world government should be to the benefit of everyone. Captialism is not to the benefit of everyone and not a good model to base a world government off of. But it seems to few agree with my thinking. And more I watch the news (which is rare now, to depressing) the more I think we should just destroy ourselves and let the world start over.


And that my friend, is why your opinions aren't worth dick. When your statements regarding human affairs entail the end of human affairs you can't expect to be taken seriously.

For good reason.

America is more of a cultural empire, who here has never eaten a Big Mac? I don't hear many Yanks asking for bangers and mash. And isolationism is the other side of the global community coin, after all when and not if a recession hits it takes every one with it. After that it'll be a case of once biten twice shy

And that my friend, is why your opinions aren't worth dick. When your statements regarding human affairs entail the end of human affairs you can't expect to be taken seriously.

For good reason.

That's a bit harsh! Turn on the news, see rapes, murders, pedophilia, celebrity gossip, multimillionaire sports stars, poor teachers and nurses, starving nations, wars... I defy anyone who thinks about it not to sometimes feel things'd be better if we could just press the rewind button and start over again with ameobas! :p

In the future I would like to see the dissolution of borders. A true international state. Not the UN, but a true world government. Divisions only cause war. No divisions, no war.

Not going to happen. Until Armageddon, when the Anti-Christ unifies the world under one government. So, coming from an atheist, I guess that makes my magic 8 ball answer "signs point to no".

Elgesh']That's a bit harsh! Turn on the news, see rapes, murders, pedophilia, celebrity gossip, multimillionaire sports stars, poor teachers and nurses, starving nations, wars... I defy anyone who thinks about it not to sometimes feel things'd be better if we could just press the rewind button and start over again with ameobas! :p


Maybe not ameobas :) let's get the whole giant reptiles that eat twice their body mass in a day out of the way at least.

But I see your point, some times life is depressing. But screw it. Descisions are made by those who show up, so is the system failing us or are we failing the system?

Heh! Well, if history is any indication, the decline and fall of empire almost always results in massive dislocation, starvation, poverty, disease and death.


The British Empire managed the trick of avoiding these things pretty well when it fell.

Elgesh']That's a bit harsh! Turn on the news, see rapes, murders, pedophilia, celebrity gossip, multimillionaire sports stars, poor teachers and nurses, starving nations, wars... I defy anyone who thinks about it not to sometimes feel things'd be better if we could just press the rewind button and start over again with ameobas! :p

Go ahead hit the rewind button, go back to when rape was the order of the day the world over, when a life wasn't worth the rag that wiped blood from the sword blade, when pedophilia and pederasty was the stuff of "civilized" nations, when societies where built entirely on the back of slaves, and when war was the highest glory of your life.

Not going to happen. Until Armageddon, when the Anti-Christ unifies the world under one government. So, coming from an atheist, I guess that makes my magic 8 ball answer "signs point to no".


The anti christ'll be too busy having fun to set up a government, all that fire, brimstone, rape and pilage, Fox interviews... (true evil).

And what the hell are you doing in my sisters room? OUT! *shoos you away with toe of boot*

The British Empire managed the trick of avoiding these things pretty well when it fell.

That's the beauty of keeping your influence at arms-length. :p

Go ahead hit the rewind button, go back to when rape was the order of the day the world over, when a life wasn't worth the rag that wiped blood from the sword blade, when pedophilia and pederasty was the stuff of "civilized" nations, when societies where built entirely on the back of slaves, and when war was the highest glory of your life.


That could basically describe the Africa of today though

Obviously not literally, but the gist of what your saying happens still today in this world without the rewind button :(

That could basically describe the Africa of today though

Touché salesman.

Maybe not ameobas :) let's get the whole giant reptiles that eat twice their body mass in a day out of the way at least.

But I see your point, some times life is depressing. But screw it. Descisions are made by those who show up, so is the system failing us or are we failing the system?

Like any interaction, both sides need to do better/are at fault :). But power and pride are hellish hard addictions to give up, whatever your position and inclination.

P.S. No, no, go back to when there were over 30 distinct species of great apes - it was only a few million years ago, and those guys _rule_! To this day, ever since I was 7, I wish there were more gorillas and chimps around the place. Especially Gorillas.

Elgesh']Like any interaction, both sides need to do better/are at fault :). But power and pride are hellish hard addictions to give up, whatever your position and inclination.

P.S. No, no, go back to when there were over 30 distinct species of great apes - it was only a few million years ago, and those guys _rule_! To this day, ever since I was 7, I wish there were more gorillas and chimps around the place. Especially Gorillas.


There's enough chimps knocking around, look at the Oval Office.... :D

And that my friend, is why your opinions aren't worth dick. When your statements regarding human affairs entail the end of human affairs you can't expect to be taken seriously.

For good reason.


Well spoken... Any desire to start over is a decision to give up. This seems to follow the same logic as those who don't vote, because they feel their vote doesnt mean anything, yet continue to complain about the state of the world. It is our responsibility to question our government, but I hardly feel the same dispare when watching the news. Ekland earns a point for this one..

Touché salesman.

Its hard to believe, but I try my best :)

Go ahead hit the rewind button, go back to when rape was the order of the day the world over, when a life wasn't worth the rag that wiped blood from the sword blade, when pedophilia and pederasty was the stuff of "civilized" nations, when societies where built entirely on the back of slaves, and when war was the highest glory of your life.

Yo, guy - I was talking about going back to amoebas... as I directly said, I mean, I didn't like _imply_ it! Did you not read my post? I wasn't romanticising past ages of human history. Quite the reverse.

(I do still like the idea of the ape planet I mentioned above, mind :D)

edit: it was a light hearted moment of pseudo-despair, friend - no need to take it all so seriously _all_ the time, eh? :)

Elgesh']
(I do still like the idea of the ape planet I mentioned above, mind :D)


So long as Charlton Heston gets to hang out with the apes I down with it too

Elgesh']Yo, guy - I was talking about going back to amoebas... as I directly said, I mean, I didn't like _imply_ it! Did you not read my post? I wasn't romanticising past ages of human history. Quite the reverse.

(I do still like the idea of the ape planet I mentioned above, mind :D)

Wouldn't make much of a difference. The process that took us from amoebas to Human beings is entirely based on dominance, exploitation, and cut throat competition. Evolution is highly predictable by its tenants and would inevitably leave us in similar circumstances.

edit: it was a light hearted moment of pseudo-despair, friend - no need to take it all so seriously _all_ the time, eh?

Fair enough. :)

Wouldn't make much of a difference. The process that took us from amoebas to Human beings is entirely based on dominance, exploitation, and cut throat competition. Evolution is highly predictable by its tenants and would inevitably leave us in similar circumstances.

<sigh> I know, there's no need to patronise... oh, never mind, mate, as you please...:rolleyes:

edit: Argh! You edited! Well, me too then! :D No, Apologies if I misjudged the tone of the debate, didn't mean to offend/weakass way out of an argument :) See you anon!

Elgesh']<sigh> I know, there's no need to patronise... oh, never mind, mate, as you please...:rolleyes:

edit: Argh! You edited! Well, me too then! :D No, Apologies if I misjudged the tone of the debate, didn't mean to offend/weakass way out of an argument :) See you anon!

Heh, no problem mate, I try to stay concise and too the point; I guess it can come across as a little cold. Nothing at all meant by it, we're cool here. :)

Heh, no problem mate, I try to stay concise and too the point; I guess it can come across as a little cold. Nothing at all meant by it, we're cool here. :)

Coolness :)

Just to drag us back on topic, given the emerging differences even in the English language and its usage across nations that use it, how long will English remain the lingua franca of the post-USA hegemony? What would replace it and why? Bear in mind that Latin stayed the internationally-acceptable language across Europe and beyond even a 1000 years after the collapse - not strategic retreat - of the Roman Empire in the west?

Elgesh']Coolness :)

Just to drag us back on topic, given the emerging differences even in the English language and its usage across nations that use it, how long will English remain the lingua franca of the post-USA hegemony? What would replace it and why? Bear in mind that Latin stayed the internationally-acceptable language across Europe and beyond even a 1000 years after the collapse - not strategic retreat - of the Roman Empire in the west?


English, or rather a version of it will probably stay the 'lingua franca'. Its too international now, airline pilots and air traffic controllers have to know it to work in their field, Chinese citizens need a basic grasp of it before being issued travel papers so its here to stay I'd say, but as a living, evolving language it'll change as time passes. And latin as we know it today is probably nothing like what it was in Rome (the spoken latin of today is called Medieval Latin and owes most of the pronunciations to medieval Italian.)

Hmmm, its amazing the amount of useless shit that infests my brain really...

The anti christ'll be too busy having fun to set up a government, all that fire, brimstone, rape and pilage, Fox interviews... (true evil).

And what the hell are you doing in my sisters room? OUT! *shoos you away with toe of boot*

Well, actually, the religious types/ biblical scholars say that the antichrist will gain power by being the "savior" of mankind, by uniting the world amid all the terrible natural disasters and wars and such. THEN his true colors will come out, and we are in for it. I saw a documentary on the history channel about it yesterday.

And I am in your little sister's room to... introduce her to the medical profession.

Hoping to get some thoughts on the status of the United States as the Hegemonic State of the world.. Is this still the case? And if so, do you feel America's status as the world power is declining, staying the same, or increasing?
Not to quibble, but it's not so much a question of the variability of America's status - it's a question of the extent to which the status of rest of the planet impacts upon America, or more succinctly, upon Americans.

Not to quibble, but it's not so much a question of the variability of America's status - it's a question of the extent to which the status of rest of the planet impacts upon America, or more succinctly, upon Americans.

Not to sound too terribly much like an "arrogant American" but I would say the United States in its current state is by no means a product of its surroundings, rather its surroundings are a product of it. The desire by Americans to open its markets to international trade, and to participate in globalization around it have made the surroundings a better place. To the contrary, the surrounding world has done little to benefit the US besides providing exotic products not in abundance here. your thoughts?

[QUOTE=Droskianishk] snip QUOTE]

In an alutrustic way of thinking. A world government should be to the benefit of everyone. Captialism is not to the benefit of everyone and not a good model to base a world government off of. But it seems to few agree with my thinking. And more I watch the news (which is rare now, to depressing) the more I think we should just destroy ourselves and let the world start over.


Altruism is not reality. I'm sorry but thats the truth. Capitalism is to the benifit of everyone, thats why the worlds not in good shape today. Not everyone is capitalist!
Look at it this way, the places that have it shitty, are usually communist, phsyco dictatorship, and socialist (Africa as an example). The places that have it good are extremely capitalist nations. The ones that are ehhh kinda middlish, are caught between capitalism and socialism.

Not to sound too terribly much like an "arrogant American" but I would say the United States in its current state is by no means a product of its surroundings, rather its surroundings are a product of it. The desire by Americans to open its markets to international trade, and to participate in globalization around it have made the surroundings a better place. To the contrary, the surrounding world has done little to benefit the US besides providing exotic products not in abundance here. your thoughts?Well, as the rest of the world develops, grows, and improves alongside America, this will increase the pressures upon the planet itself. There is a ceiling on sustainable consumption. Whether America chooses to recognize that and work in tandem with the nations in development to set limits upon, and thus hopefully circumvent an untenable world economy.

As to what placing reasonable limits on growth at home and abroad would entail, I can't say for certain. Perhaps you might be able to illustrate-?

Altruism is not reality. I'm sorry but thats the truth. Capitalism is to the benifit of everyone, thats why the worlds not in good shape today. Not everyone is capitalist!
Look at it this way, the places that have it shitty, are usually communist, phsyco dictatorship, and socialist (Africa as an example). The places that have it good are extremely capitalist nations. The ones that are ehhh kinda middlish, are caught between capitalism and socialism.
Look at it this way. Some of the nations that have adopted the most neoliberal capitalist shock therapies prescribed by the IMF are in the worst shape. Like Haiti. And Argentina...though things are finally improving somewhat. So what kind of capitalism are you talking about? The kind that allow protectionism and social services, as exist in the wealthy west? Or the kind of neoliberal free-trade capitalism that requires the complete privitisation of all public services? Because what the West is pushing, is not what the West is itself buying.

Well, as the rest of the world develops, grows, and improves alongside America, this will increase the pressures upon the planet itself. There is a ceiling on sustainable consumption. Whether America chooses to recognize that and work in tandem with the nations in development to set limits upon, and thus hopefully circumvent an untenable world economy.

As to what placing reasonable limits on growth at home and abroad would entail, I can't say for certain. Perhaps you might be able to illustrate-?


No one knows what that limit is, and their very very far away. Until a few years ago you could fit everyone on the planet in the state of Texas. That argument is made by socialists, and communists, to say ohhhhh we've gotta stop all this "evil" which has only improved the world over the past 100 years or so.

When we hit the limits, it'll be long after me and everyone else posting on this forum is dead.

Look at it this way. Some of the nations that have adopted the most neoliberal capitalist shock therapies prescribed by the IMF are in the worst shape. Like Haiti. And Argentina...though things are finally improving somewhat. So what kind of capitalism are you talking about? The kind that allow protectionism and social services, as exist in the wealthy west? Or the kind of neoliberal free-trade capitalism that requires the complete privitisation of all public services? Because what the West is pushing, is not what the West is itself buying.


Thats because the West is pushing its own intrests, like everyone around the globe should do. How do you think the West got wealthy? It sure wasn't by giving handouts and through free-trade and all of that.

Listen when America passed its first embargo acts, and protectionist tariffs in the early 1800's everyone got all pissed and the economy hurt, at first. The American economy then started growing because those same things that had hurt it allowed industry to grow at home. And look where America got (economically)? The top, but we've liberaled out and socialized and we're starting to weaken.

No one knows what that limit is, and their very very far away. Until a few years ago you could fit everyone on the planet in the state of Texas.
A few years ago? What on Earth are you talking about? In 1802, we were at a billion...are you telling me that would've fit into Texas?

That argument is made by socialists, and communists, to say ohhhhh we've gotta stop all this "evil" which has only improved the world over the past 100 years or so. Yes, with healthy doses of socialism...like unemployment insurance, old age pension and so on.

A few years ago? What on Earth are you talking about? In 1802, we were at a billion...are you telling me that would've fit into Texas?

Yes, with healthy doses of socialism...like unemployment insurance, old age pension and so on.


Yea Texas is huge, people don't seem to realize the size of our earth.

Socialism would be nice, it would be great if everyone was honest and we could help everybody yada yada yada. But its not fair when you steal from somebody to give to somebody else who could be defrauding. About 33% of those on welfare in America are frauds.


(And old age retirement is yuck, privatization is alot better. If the government would promote privatized retirement, I would say ok, but government old age retirement is giving people breadcrumbs when they could have the whole loaf of bread)

Thats because the West is pushing its own intrests, like everyone around the globe should do. How do you think the West got wealthy? It sure wasn't by giving handouts and through free-trade and all of that.

Listen when America passed its first embargo acts, and protectionist tariffs in the early 1800's everyone got all pissed and the economy hurt, at first. The American economy then started growing because those same things that had hurt it allowed industry to grow at home. And look where America got (economically)? The top, but we've liberaled out and socialized and we're starting to weaken. But what allowed you to get to the top was in part:

a) slave labour
b) protectionism

A is denied, because no one is going to stand for that anymore. Oh wait, that's not true. It still goes on in the Sudan, and in other parts of the world in form of sweatshops laborours and sex slaves. But anyway. B is denied by the Breton Woods institutions. So what helped the West get to the top, is decried as 'unecessary' for everyone else.

Yea Texas is huge, people don't seem to realize the size of our earth.

Socialism would be nice, it would be great if everyone was honest and we could help everybody yada yada yada. But its not fair when you steal from somebody to give to somebody else who could be defrauding. About 33% of those on welfare in America are frauds.
Provide a source for that stat.

And Texas isn't that bloody big...not 'fit a billion comfortably' big.

But what allowed you to get to the top was in part:

a) slave labour
b) protectionism

A is denied, because no one is going to stand for that anymore. Oh wait, that's not true. It still goes on in the Sudan, and in other parts of the world in form of sweatshops laborours and sex slaves. But anyway. B is denied by the Breton Woods institutions. So what helped the West get to the top, is decried as 'unecessary' for everyone else.


Thats because their wizing up. Now slavery you can't argue that slavery helped the US economy all that greatly. The industry of the US was mostly located in the North, where slavery wasn't all that prevelant.

Protectionism is good to a degree, and you have to be careful and tactful about how you employ it. The rest of the world doesn't want, and will scream against the US using it because they want to pull those factory's and the industry away from the US strengthening their own economy's.

(And old age retirement is yuck, privatization is alot better. If the government would promote privatized retirement, I would say ok, but government old age retirement is giving people breadcrumbs when they could have the whole loaf of bread)
Really? Then you can give me an example of a country that has private old age security, where seniors get the whole loaf instead of crumbs.

Protectionism is good to a degree, and you have to be careful and tactful about how you employ it. The rest of the world doesn't want, and will scream against the US using it because they want to pull those factory's and the industry away from the US strengthening their own economy's.
Not the issue I'm discussing actually. The traditional use of protectionism in the West has helped strengthen their economy. It's a done deal. The current protectionism, even if totally discarded now, would not negate the advantage that's given the West. Other nations, however, newly developing, are being denied that advantage altogether. The West is deliberately ignoring the formula they know from experience WORKS in favour of an neoliberal experiment...the consequences of which, if it fails, will not take food from their own mouths.

Thats because their wizing up. Now slavery you can't argue that slavery helped the US economy all that greatly. The industry of the US was mostly located in the North, where slavery wasn't all that prevelant.

Protectionism is good to a degree, and you have to be careful and tactful about how you employ it. The rest of the world doesn't want, and will scream against the US using it because they want to pull those factory's and the industry away from the US strengthening their own economy's.
Not to quibble, but you're not entirely correct regarding the impact of slavery on the formative years of the United States. At a time when the US economy was primarily agrarian in nature, slaves provided the deep pool of forced labour deemed necessary for commercial farming enterprises. And correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't all of the 'founding fathers' slave owners?

Meanwhile, protectionism is a risky proposition, internationally speaking. The desire for short-term gain through mollifying one industry lobby or another must be weighed against the longer-term negative impacts to existing international trade agreements. I suggest you try looking at the recent findings against the American government on the part of both the ruling committee of NAFTA and a seperate ruling by the WTO, which agrees with the earlier ruling of NAFTA, that the US violated the terms of the original Canada-USA Free Trade agreement when G.W. Bush bowed to pressure from the American softwood lumber industry and illegally slapped a tarriff on Canadian goods that has netted $5 billion dollars in ill-gotten gains since imposition.

Well, as the rest of the world develops, grows, and improves alongside America, this will increase the pressures upon the planet itself. There is a ceiling on sustainable consumption. Whether America chooses to recognize that and work in tandem with the nations in development to set limits upon, and thus hopefully circumvent an untenable world economy.

As to what placing reasonable limits on growth at home and abroad would entail, I can't say for certain. Perhaps you might be able to illustrate-?


You certainly make a point... I think in America's case, consumption could be better classified into Need and Waste. There is alot of wasteful consumption, that really benefits no one. This can be done away with, although we do run on a market economy, and if there is a market for waste...... you know the rest...

Well, as the rest of the world develops, grows, and improves alongside America, this will increase the pressures upon the planet itself. There is a ceiling on sustainable consumption. Whether America chooses to recognize that and work in tandem with the nations in development to set limits upon, and thus hopefully circumvent an untenable world economy.

As to what placing reasonable limits on growth at home and abroad would entail, I can't say for certain. Perhaps you might be able to illustrate-?


You certainly make a point... I think in America's case, consumption could be better classified into Need and Waste. There is alot of wasteful consumption, that really benefits no one. This can be done away with, although we do run on a market economy, and if there is a market for waste...... you know the rest...