WheelsRCool
Contributor
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
14%
- Aug 12, 2007
- 436
- 59
There may have been economic benefit to opening up military bases in certain areas for connected people, but the major reason for opening the bases was because Germany had just started a major war and now was not allowed to have an offensive-capable military. They thus had to be protected and also there had to be a buffer there because of the threat of the Soviets. I think modern Germany would sure take issue with the assertion that it's a "colonized country," since it was a country that specifically would not help the U.S. out with Iraq. I also do not see our bases in places like Japan (who also started the war) and South Korea (where the communists tried to take over) as being strictly for economic purposes.
This argument also contradicts the entire libertarian argument for closing the military bases around the world, as the argument is that they cost us too much money. If they are a net economic benefit, i.e. make us money, along with providing security, that's all the more argument to keep them open.
My argument would be that the gold standard is too inflexible for any modern economy, and there isn't enough gold in the world to match the money supply. It's also based on a false premise. There is no underlying value to gold. Technically, it's one of the most worthless materials in existence. It only holds value because people say it does. It is valued based on faith and tradition, not industrial demand. In times of crisis, it has can prove worthless (for example, during the Japanese invasion of China in WW2, wealthy Chinese families that suddenly had all their assets confiscated and were cut off from their foreign assets traded the jewelry the women had for living essentials; gold was pretty worthless then). As for the dollar losing value, so what if it does? As long as the level of inflation is kept low, this isn't a problem as time goes on. You can't just tie the modern money supply to the supply of gold. The gold standard is based on old economic theory that holds that the currency has to be tied to a precious metal. If tied to the gold standard, then the growth rate of the money supply is now tied to an arbitrary material as opposed to whether the economy actually needs money or not.
In addition, if you we go back on the gold standard, then we are at the mercy of the global supply of gold. Gold doesn't cure inflation or deflation, both can happen as there can be a shortage of gold, or other countries could decide to dump their gold reserves. With the U.S. dollar, we are the gold standard of the world. Also, things like salt and cinnamon have also historically served as mediums of exchange. That something has served a certain way for many years in the past doesn't mean that it will work well with a modern economy.
Thank goodness the US has colonized the world, now everyone can feel safe....
And many do, which is why they don't bother to spend much on defense themselves, when the U.S. can handle it for them. Millions of people around the world live in safety because of the U.S.
No. I am saying that a country that is impossible to invade due to its geography, and thus has developed the advantage of always being able to remain neutral and also serve as the banking haven for all the world's nefarious, can be safe. Ask South Vietnam if "minding its own business" protected it from the north. Or South Korea from North Korea. Or the Eastern European nations from modern Russia, Tibet from China, etc...I'm rather amazed you'd think a nation or a people minding its own business is going to protect it from countries that wish to oppress and do harm. The Aztecs and the Native Americans sure might have a bone to pick there!
1) None of these constitute any "continuous bombing" on the part of the U.S.
2) Saddam was a horrendous dictator who had used chemical weapons on the Kurds, who had tried to acquire a nuclear weapon in the past and had gotten close, and who continued to thumb his nose at the world community regarding his WMD capability. While more due diligence should have been done before invading, calling it "unprovoked" is over-simplifying it. Furthermore, you make it sound like Iraq was a peaceful liberal democracy just minding its own business. Hussein was one of the most oppressive dictators in the region, a mass-murderer and a torturer. And the U.S. did not "continuously bomb" Iraq in order to oust him. The ousting of him was pretty quick and targeted. Al-Qaeda then decided to go in and start a war with the U.S. military. They are the ones who oppressed the Iraqi peoples, so much so that the Iraqis turned against them and sided with the U.S.
3) Afghanistan the U.S. wanted nothing to do with. That is what led to 9/11 in the first place, the U.S. staying out of there and ignoring the area, which then festered as the terrorists had taken the place over. If the U.S. had been actively involved in there from the beginning, since the Soviets left, this might not have happened.
4) Bombing the Serbians had to do with all the chaos occurring in the former Yugoslavia, which was something the United States tried to remain out of. The U.S. figured that the Europeans could handle it, because surely something like this the Euros could handle, as this wasn't the equivalent of Nazi Germany in terms of military strength or anything. As it was, the Europeans sad idly by for years and did nothing while people were being slaughtered. Finally, the U.S. eventually went in since no one else would do anything and began putting a stop to it, which required bombing certain elements such as the Serbians. Bombing these groups had nothing to do with oppressing anyone, it was to stop the slaughter.
1) Formal empires, not a modern nation-state superpower. Their imperial strength depended on the size of their colonial system, not their economy. The U.S.'s military bases are not colonies meant to increase its economic strength, they are a net drain on it financially (hence folks like Ron Paul saying to close them up).
2) The United States is not implementing socialism. Going more left, sure, but not anything like what Labour did in the UK.
3) I agree on the wars, but one war like Iraq doesn't undo a country. Britain had to undergo a world war to lose its empire, and even then, afterwards, it could have recovered enormously economically. To an extent, it has, but it went through a period of stagnation due to adopting socialism.
China is a ticking time bomb aging-wise:
BBC News - China seeks ways to manage ageing population crisis
China's population: The most surprising demographic crisis | The Economist
I see.
You are confusing the total amount of money spent on the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001, which has been $1.4 trillion. Here is an official link regarding the defense budget: http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/FY2013_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf (skip down to page 141).
Not saying it isn't, but time will tell for sure.
Visiting Russia is not going to give one a wholesale picture of the state of the Russian economy. You have to look at all the facts. The country is making a lot of progress, but it is not any major industrial power at the moment. The primary source of the Russian government's revenues are commodities.
Here is an article by Charles Krauthammer from June 6, 2008, in which he discusses the $4 a gallon gasoline. I also remember the $4/gallon gasoline quite well. Since then, gas declined some, then has since gone up to $4 again, at least here in Upstate, NY: Charles Krauthammer - At $4, Everybody Gets Rational $4/gallon is also part of what sent GM and Chrysler over a cliff.
What makes him a parasite? I know that the more Libertarian folks view the Federal Reserve and the Federal Reserve Chairman as the equivalents of Satan. I'm plenty familiar with the Libertarian and Austrian School points of view on economics. That I don't fully buy into them doesn't make me "gone" at all. Austrians make some very salient points on some things, but they are IMO totally out to sea on other issues.
I see what confused me here. As said, China is the largest foreign holder of our debt. Recently, as you say, the Fed surpassed China and Japan in debt held. However, the debt held by the combination of the Fed and intragovernmental holdings, such as the Medicare Trust Fund and the Social Security Trust Fund, is about $6 trillion. What confused me is that the Treasury in a bulletin in the past had labeled both (and probably still does) together as one category and I was just remembering the "Federal Reserve" part of the label.
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum:
Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.
