Do you think America is doomed, or that it hit a bump in it's progression as a nation? - General

[QUOTE=live4u120;36699797] The politicians don't care about us anymore because they have lobbyists sucking their chodes all day long so the rules can be permanently bent in exchange for a luxurious and immoral lifestyle. [/QUOTE] Sorry, but, uh, the guy in your avatar does exactly that.

We might be doomed, shit is going to get very real over the next ten years.

Let's see, we are in a bad economy that no one is really doing anything about because when 1 party gets elected into office, the opposite party gets elected into congress, creating a constant "He said blah blah blah, and he said blah blah blah" conflict with no sound resolution. Yeah, I think we're toast.

Every empire rises and falls, america is already on its way out i'm afraid. [editline]23rd July 2012[/editline] look at somewhere like britain; we're still around but we're a kind of shadow of our former selves and a fraction of the power and importance. that is happening to america and one day they might be a relatively wealthy and large nation, but not as influential or revered.

It's fucked, and I already hate this place. Dcf has already fucked with my life twice and is trying to do it again. Canada here I come. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating." - Megafan))[/highlight]

I don't get the rationale behind this whole "america is doomed" idea. It's just a recession, we've had worse. Heck, we were actually stronger after coming out of the Great Depression then we were when we went in.

Honestly, it's not doomed. In fact, new technologies are being invented and new innovations discovered everyday right here in America. Sure, the economy isn't the best, but we've seen worse. I do agree with some of the other posters that it is losing its "superpower" status though, as progress spreads more equally to other nations. However, I disagree that "it's fucked", and there are many opportunities here.

[QUOTE=live4u120;36699797]I don't think America is going to run into a problem- the entire world will. My personal belief is that World War 3 will happen in our lifetimes, but I'll try and explain my radical opinion. America is looking at a 15.8 trillion dollar debt that generations after generations are going to have to pay for, a war that we can't pull the plug on yet it drains our economy dry, and our industries are being outsourced one by one. Our own Federal Reserve and International Monetary fund are not excited about our economy's outlook. The IMF predicts that China will surpass America by 2016 (I will address this point in the next paragraph). The Federal Reserve is losing trillions of dollars mysteriously and these cases aren't being questioned at all. To give you my freshness on this perspective, last weekend the severe thunderstorms experienced because of the heat wave knocked out power for nearly 2 million people, and exposed a problem in America's electrical grid that will cost them 600+ billion dollars in the future. This is money America literally doesn't have, since our currency is fiat in the first place. Globalization will play a key factor in the upcoming revolution. Since our industry for the most part is outsourced and won't come back unless Americans accept terrible conditions, we will destroy these jobs in other countries and send tensions high. China may seem like a superpower now, but they are only profiting from the unfair labor manufacturing that supplies the United States and Europe with nearly every product. Once our buying power dies, the Chinese economy will plummet (hopefully). They also have a government who doesn't play by the rules, and the Chinese people can't be treated fairly unless action is taken. For an idea at how powerful China is right now, the government literally purchased the AMC Movie company. Another American economic player down the drain. As for the buying power of Europe, it is already collapsing. The euro-zone crisis has swallowed the most of Europe, and it has pitted Germany flourishing economy against the bankrupt economies of Spain (125 billion euro bailout), Greece (45 billion euro bailout), Ireland, Portugal, etc. Loaning money on this scale is a recipe for disaster. Also let's think about the Middle East for a second. Could there be a chance that the violence escalates? The new president (Romney's SuperPACs have raised over 100 million while Obama's have scraped the surface of 71 million in June.) already stated that he would go to war with Iran. Not only could Iran start selling oil to Russia and China instead of us, but they could also make this war much hotter. Israel could get involved, and then we are staring down the barrel of another nuclear scare. The politicians don't care about us anymore because they have lobbyists sucking their chodes all day long so the rules can be permanently bent in exchange for a luxurious and immoral lifestyle. Goldman Sachs has a grip on the world by the balls, and they are allowed to give the power to whoever they want because they are private. Even the advent of anonymous SuperPACS is a serious violation of what we call democracy. SuperPACS, especially in Romney's case who said he wouldn't be giving out any names, allow the donator and the amount donated is allowed to remain completely hidden until the elections are over in November. The transition that we, humans of the year 2012, are facing is this: Money has infiltrated every aspect of our lives and has even become our happiness. We are completely unconnected to nature in the way that we shouldn't be, and unconnected with ourselves as well. We can't sympathize with the suffering of people outside of our country because we are only concerned with what is happening in the now. We have a long intellectual journey ahead as a human race. This event could possibly unite the whole world if we use technology wisely. Want to know something that may just blow your mind? A few days ago, a bank called LIBOR which manages international interests rates and claims ownership to $350 TRILLION in trades, let it slip that the Barclays Bank was gaming the interest rates for their profit. Not only was it the Barclays, but others had to be involved in order for such a massive scale of corruption to happen. Even JPMorgan Chase lost billions in a bad bet on a hedge fund, and the numbers are still rolling upwards. Why aren't we doing anything about it? I think as long as humans get to watch their tv, enjoy their a/c, play on their computer, fap all day long, they will always be complacent with a relatively posh lifestyle. America will indeed become more like a police state, and we will unconsciously give the president far too much power. America has not legally declared war since World War 2, so that should show you what kind of power the president has nowadays. Obama recently passed the DREAM act without the approval of Congress. Now is the part where I address the "bump in the road" comment. I think America is still, and will remain, the greatest country in the world even if our people don't resemble that. We were founded on the idea that every man, woman, and child deserve complete freedom and the right to happiness. At the time, this was an idea never tested before and we fought tooth and nail for our right to be American. Like all humans, we can be lazy but we can also be valiant. When pushed into a corner, we really show our true colors. Take for example 9/11, which united and lit the entire country with an unquenchable thirst for vengeance that may have thrown us too far. Well I guess those are most of my thoughts on this thread... I hope I didn't make anyone angry.[/QUOTE] Why would you want the Chinese economy to plummet? That's over a billion people that would suffer. Secondly, the chinese economy is not built off cheap exports, domestic consumption accounts for 70% of the economy.in fact they use they're using the same economic policies that western countries used to become developed. The US needs to weaken the financial industry and bring back manufacturing to the US if it wants to stand up again, of course this won't happen because of neo-liberal economics and obama's incompetence. The US also needs to stop pushing economic globadlisation on the third world because it is destroying those developing countries. Thirdly, US foreign policy needs to change because in 300 years it has done more bad than good. If you think that US foreign policy is doing good then you seriously need to read something other than the bullshit CNN and the New York Times put forth.

[QUOTE=Earthen;36986253]Why would you want the Chinese economy to plummet? That's over a billion people that would suffer. Secondly, the chinese economy is not built off cheap exports, domestic consumption accounts for 70% of the economy.in fact they use they're using the same economic policies that western countries used to become developed. The US needs to weaken the financial industry and bring back manufacturing to the US if it wants to stand up again, of course this won't happen because of neo-liberal economics and obama's incompetence. The US also needs to stop pushing economic globadlisation on the third world because it is destroying those developing countries. Thirdly, US foreign policy needs to change because in 300 years it has done more bad than good. If you think that US foreign policy is doing good then you seriously need to read something other than the bullshit CNN and the New York Times put forth.[/QUOTE] I personally think going back to manufacturing is a bad idea. Manufacturing can be done cheaper and better in third world countries, so we have no real chance to compete. Our best plan is to find new markets that we can excel in. How is globalization destroying developing countries? globalization is the reason they are developing in the first place. And you do realize that the U.S. has not been using the same foreign policy for 300 years? up until World War 2, we were largely non-interventionist, except in Latin America.

[QUOTE=Earthen;36986253]Why would you want the Chinese economy to plummet? That's over a billion people that would suffer. Secondly, the chinese economy is not built off cheap exports, domestic consumption accounts for 70% of the economy.in fact they use they're using the same economic policies that western countries used to become developed. The US needs to weaken the financial industry and bring back manufacturing to the US if it wants to stand up again, of course this won't happen because of neo-liberal economics and obama's incompetence. The US also needs to stop pushing economic globadlisation on the third world because it is destroying those developing countries. Thirdly, US foreign policy needs to change because in 300 years it has done more bad than good. If you think that US foreign policy is doing good then you seriously need to read something other than the bullshit CNN and the New York Times put forth.[/QUOTE] provide a source that domestic consumption accounts for 70% of the economy

[QUOTE=Fenderson;36084468]Well China could cash in their US bonds, then we'd be fucked.[/QUOTE] Yes, their entire 1 trillion in bonds and loans. Would totally put us to third world status. Realistically, they'd hurt themselves more than us if they did that, because not only would they be hurting relations, but they would be screwing themselves out of the investment return once the dollar is strong again.

[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;36999125]provide a source that domestic consumption accounts for 70% of the economy[/QUOTE] [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#External_trade[/URL] Exports only account for 22.5%. [editline]2nd August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;36994536]I personally think going back to manufacturing is a bad idea. Manufacturing can be done cheaper and better in third world countries, so we have no real chance to compete. Our best plan is to find new markets that we can excel in. How is globalization destroying developing countries? globalization is the reason they are developing in the first place. And you do realize that the U.S. has not been using the same foreign policy for 300 years? up until World War 2, we were largely non-interventionist, except in Latin America.[/QUOTE] Sure manufacturing can be done cheaper in third world countries, but it means less jobs in the US and just more power for TNCs. Neo-liberal economics has slowed down growth rates vastly in developing nations. If you want proof just look at growth rates and government policies before the 70's and look at them now. US foreign policy has always been very aggressive, it has almost always hurt the native people and left them destitute while the US profits in some way.

I think we're seeing a lot of shit go down, those suffering economic pains I doubt are the most jubilant to say "nah, we're fine", I think we're in a slump and will recover but it might take a while.

[QUOTE=Earthen;37053653][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#External_trade[/URL] Exports only account for 22.5%. [editline]2nd August 2012[/editline] Sure manufacturing can be done cheaper in third world countries, but it means less jobs in the US and just more power for TNCs. Neo-liberal economics has slowed down growth rates vastly in developing nations. If you want proof just look at growth rates and government policies before the 70's and look at them now. US foreign policy has always been very aggressive, it has almost always hurt the native people and left them destitute while the US profits in some way.[/QUOTE] But there are only two ways to keep manufacturing jobs in America: dramatically lower benefits and wages, or put protectionist policies into effect. Option 1 would hurt workers significantly, and I don't think anyone truly supports it. Option 2 would help workers in the short run, but hurt the economy in the long run. [editline]2nd August 2012[/editline] [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Prc1952-2005gdp.gif[/IMG] notice how China's GDP starts to grow rapidly after it starts trading with the outside world, and is still climbing. [T]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/India_GDP_without_labels.PNG[/T] India's GDP starts to pick up in the late 70's, as the government eases restrictions on businesses, but starts skyrocketing in the 90's when India started it's process of economic liberalization. [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Russian_economy_since_fall_of_Soviet_Union.PNG[/IMG] now let's look at Russia. They had some problems transitioning from communism to a free market, but now their economy is booming. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Asian_Tigers#See_also"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Asian_Tigers#See_also[/URL] The Four Asian Tigers (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan) are also doing great, and a World Bank report contributes their success partially to neo-liberal policies. EDIT: after reading more about it, claiming neo-liberalism was the cause of the Tigers success might be an exaggeration. Either way, you can't argue that trading with the outside world did not help.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37060853]But there are only two ways to keep manufacturing jobs in America: dramatically lower benefits and wages, or put protectionist policies into effect. Option 1 would hurt workers significantly, and I don't think anyone truly supports it. Option 2 would help workers in the short run, but hurt the economy in the long run. [/QUOTE] Protectionist policies help the country in the long run. The US protected infant industries throughout the 1800's and had heavy tariffs to combat international competition. Its the reason the US economy grew so damn fast. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_System_(economic_plan)[/URL] Or we can use South Korea as an example. It had a GDP lower than most African countries after the Korean War, but it used protectionist policies successfully to develop the nation. They had heavy tariffs on imported goods to make sure that people bought domestic wares, they used whatever money they had to build up a steady manufacturing and R&D base in the country. [quote][editline]2nd August 2012[/editline] [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Prc1952-2005gdp.gif[/IMG] notice how China's GDP starts to grow rapidly after it starts trading with the outside world, and is still climbing. [T]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/India_GDP_without_labels.PNG[/T] India's GDP starts to pick up in the late 70's, as the government eases restrictions on businesses, but starts skyrocketing in the 90's when India started it's process of economic liberalization.[/quote] India's economy was skyrocketing before it liberalised its economy. Even now its still heavily controlled by the government as shown by India still using tariffs at 12% for non-agricultural items. [URL]http://suite101.com/article/india-invests-in-lower-tariffs-a12475[/URL] Yes outside trade has greatly helped China, however, they're building up Chinese infrastructure and Chinese businesses until they can compete with the outside world. If China had completely liberalised its economy then products from TNCs would be the only things on shelves there, which is bad because the TNCs don't give two shits about the country they're working in nor do they seek to actually develop said country. Think about it this way, if the US had not protected its industry in the 1800s then Britain probably would have owned all the steel mills and such in the country. It would mean that none of the money coming in from that industry would be going to further develop the US nor would the companies care to actually create jobs, they simply need to exploit whatever resources are present and then bail. [quote] [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Russian_economy_since_fall_of_Soviet_Union.PNG[/IMG] now let's look at Russia. They had some problems transitioning from communism to a free market, but now their economy is booming. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Asian_Tigers#See_also[/URL] The Four Asian Tigers (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan) are also doing great, and a World Bank report contributes their success partially to neo-liberal policies. EDIT: after reading more about it, claiming neo-liberalism was the cause of the Tigers success might be an exaggeration. Either way, you can't argue that trading with the outside world did not help.[/quote] The Russian economy is going to collapse because it is entirely built on oligarchs and the state can't use the money that oligarchs get to actually improve the nation. World Bank reports are full of shit, they're just free trade babble. Hong Kong controls its real estate sector completely and has strong tariffs. Singapore has used the same policies as China and built up a strong manufacturing base in the country. South Korea used 5 year plans to build up chemical, car, and HiFi industry in the country, they also protected those industries from outside competitors so they could grow strong enough to compete internationally. Taiwan is the same thing. Claiming that neo-liberalism was the cause of the Tigers' success is more than an exaggeration. It is entirely false. Trading has helped of course, but protectionism and state interventionism has been used to develop almost every single developed nation in the world. Why else would China be doing better than India?

[QUOTE=Earthen;37076596]Protectionist policies help the country in the long run. The US protected infant industries throughout the 1800's and had heavy tariffs to combat international competition. Its the reason the US economy grew so damn fast. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_System_(economic_plan)[/URL] Or we can use South Korea as an example. It had a GDP lower than most African countries after the Korean War, but it used protectionist policies successfully to develop the nation. They had heavy tariffs on imported goods to make sure that people bought domestic wares, they used whatever money they had to build up a steady manufacturing and R&D base in the country. India's economy was skyrocketing before it liberalised its economy. Even now its still heavily controlled by the government as shown by India still using tariffs at 12% for non-agricultural items. [URL]http://suite101.com/article/india-invests-in-lower-tariffs-a12475[/URL] Yes outside trade has greatly helped China, however, they're building up Chinese infrastructure and Chinese businesses until they can compete with the outside world. If China had completely liberalised its economy then products from TNCs would be the only things on shelves there, which is bad because the TNCs don't give two shits about the country they're working in nor do they seek to actually develop said country. Think about it this way, if the US had not protected its industry in the 1800s then Britain probably would have owned all the steel mills and such in the country. It would mean that none of the money coming in from that industry would be going to further develop the US nor would the companies care to actually create jobs, they simply need to exploit whatever resources are present and then bail. The Russian economy is going to collapse because it is entirely built on oligarchs and the state can't use the money that oligarchs get to actually improve the nation. World Bank reports are full of shit, they're just free trade babble. Hong Kong controls its real estate sector completely and has strong tariffs. Singapore has used the same policies as China and built up a strong manufacturing base in the country. South Korea used 5 year plans to build up chemical, car, and HiFi industry in the country, they also protected those industries from outside competitors so they could grow strong enough to compete internationally. Taiwan is the same thing. Claiming that neo-liberalism was the cause of the Tigers' success is more than an exaggeration. It is entirely false. Trading has helped of course, but protectionism and state interventionism has been used to develop almost every single developed nation in the world. Why else would China be doing better than India?[/QUOTE] The American System is an example of import substitution industrialization. It grows the economy, but makes it very inefficient. On the other hand, export-oriented industrialization grows an economy even more, and makes for an efficient economy. The Four Asian Tigers used export-oriented industrialization, Latin America used import substitution industrialization. We can obviously see who is doing better. And TNCs do develop countries. Industrialization is a major part of development. Silly me using data to show that economic liberalization has helped India. Your claim that "India's economy was skyrocketing before it liberalized it's economy" is irrefutable, and definitely does not contradict any facts. And everyone knows how oligarchs destroy economies, I can't believe I tried to use data to contradict that common sense. But your most awe-inspiring statement was definitely "World Bank reports are full of shit, they're just free trade babble". Your logical deduction of that fact was astounding. You truly are a role-model for debaters everywhere. Now back to America. How will protectionism help us? we are already developed, so it would only make us less productive. This would hurt us economically. Even worse, by focusing on manufacturing, we ignore our comparative advantages. We should focus our economy on what we can do better than everyone else, not what everyone else can do better than us.

I'm not saying it's doomed, it's just its progression takes too long to make. I'm skeptical on seeing changes there because the system is designed to be rigid. It's just weird to see that Old World Europa is more politically flexible than New World America. [QUOTE=Hidole555;35876073]Election Reform: The problem is legislation that we need to get this country rolling again isn't getting passed because the wrong men are in office. We should have a system that is more accepting to third parties and independents. I propose that we replace the broken FPTP (First Past The Post) system we have now, [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo"]explained in this video[/URL] with at least an Alternative Vote or better, [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE"]also explained in this video.[/URL] Along with this, the Electoral College [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k"]should be abolished [/URL]as it can be manipulated to become President with less than a quarter of the people voting for you and replace it with just a popular vote. An optional bit can be some control on campaign spending but this is when things get much more debatable so that will be for another day. With these Election Reforms it will be much easier for representatives who actually represent the people who voted for them, rather than the party they are in, to get elected into office which would allow more more competent legislation which would help a greater number of people.[/QUOTE] With only 50-57% of Americans voted on the presidency election during the noughties, it's just sad to think about it. Remove the two-party system too. The duopoly isn't helpful here in the UK, it isn't gonna help there too. AV isn't enough to stop Gerrymandering, it has got to be more than that. STV sound okay basing on your criteria of focusing on the local representatives instead on party politics. Doesn't matter if the counting on STV elections takes longer than usual, American elections are so retardedly long anyway. Also turn into a Parliamentary country where the leader of the nation is damn accountable to the legislative branch. It's just ironic that George Washington has more personal power and less accountability than the British King and Prime Minister he fought against.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37078715]The American System is an example of import substitution industrialization. It grows the economy, but makes it very inefficient. On the other hand, export-oriented industrialization grows an economy even more, and makes for an efficient economy. The Four Asian Tigers used export-oriented industrialization, Latin America used import substitution industrialization. We can obviously see who is doing better. And TNCs do develop countries. Industrialization is a major part of development. Silly me using data to show that economic liberalization has helped India. Your claim that "India's economy was skyrocketing before it liberalized it's economy" is irrefutable, and definitely does not contradict any facts. And everyone knows how oligarchs destroy economies, I can't believe I tried to use data to contradict that common sense. But your most awe-inspiring statement was definitely "World Bank reports are full of shit, they're just free trade babble". Your logical deduction of that fact was astounding. You truly are a role-model for debaters everywhere. Now back to America. How will protectionism help us? we are already developed, so it would only make us less productive. This would hurt us economically. Even worse, by focusing on manufacturing, we ignore our comparative advantages. We should focus our economy on what we can do better than everyone else, not what everyone else can do better than us.[/QUOTE] Inefficient? I don't know, the US seemed pretty fucking good at heavy industry. Latin American countries did better with ISI than with ESI, their growth rates were on average double during the 50's to the 70's than they are now. [URL="https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:39F4Ptug0G0J:www.eclac.cl/de/agenda/9/13799/Final31.PDF+&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjbFh9ZA9hcSt_9Mu1m9bv95kg0o8FOX0VNdxXEuRSf1urYFxhDY1V6ssNxT3JGhSxfNbU_4zQWZ2S6B3lUZX0d5i74oRhw340V5UFq13YifZHi1Tf1Dew2E8QHK3Sj5Y0PlvEm&sig=AHIEtbRhL-vV_E5xyT3EKYdFWvMPWFhvEg"] https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:39F4Ptug0G0J:www.eclac.cl/de/agenda/9/13799/Final31.PDF+&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjbFh9ZA9hcSt_9Mu1m9bv95kg0o8FOX0VNdxXEuRSf1urYFxhDY1V6ssNxT3JGhSxfNbU_4zQWZ2S6B3lUZX0d5i74oRhw340V5UFq13YifZHi1Tf1Dew2E8QHK3Sj5Y0PlvEm&sig=AHIEtbRhL-vV_E5xyT3EKYdFWvMPWFhvEg[/URL] Page 5, the table shows that the average growth rates for the countries before they liberalised their economies. You could of course just say that this is correlation not causation. However, prematurely opening Latin American markets to powerful TNCs meant that what little industry those countries had was destroyed thus jobs were lost and the money wasn't being used to further develop the country and to build up industry. See what China does so well is that it produces domestic goods while controlling imports of consumer goods heavily. It means that people buy goods made in China so that the companies that produce said goods grow over time and are thus able to produce better goods (using foreign machinery and knowledge brought over without ceding control to foreign companies) which can then be sold internationally as well. India's economy was beginning to skyrockets already before heavy liberalisation. India neglected trade completely early on, which was a bad idea of course. The oligarchs themselves don't destroy the economy, but the money could be used wiser if it were partially in the hands of the state. It's difficult to trust reports created by an organisation that so far has demonstrated an inability to acknowledge it's failures in promoting growth-friendly economic policies. You're right protectionism wouldn't help the US that much. However, more interventionism by the state and a reduction in the power of corporations would certainly benefit the US people. Comparative advantage is pretty much false. In the 50's you would have said that South Korea shouldn't produce cars or HiFI products because it can't do them well and now it can do them extremely well. The US used to be extremely innovative when they pumped a lot of money into R&D, so should they simply stop focusing on developing new technologies? Calling me out on debating methods is pretty lame considering you never answered my question about the Chinese economy.

[url]http://www.usdebtclock.org/[/url] - Here is your answer, America is doomed because you have to pay off $181,350 each.

[QUOTE=Earthen;37080354]Inefficient? I don't know, the US seemed pretty fucking good at heavy industry. Latin American countries did better with ISI than with ESI, their growth rates were on average double during the 50's to the 70's than they are now. [URL="https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:39F4Ptug0G0J:www.eclac.cl/de/agenda/9/13799/Final31.PDF+&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjbFh9ZA9hcSt_9Mu1m9bv95kg0o8FOX0VNdxXEuRSf1urYFxhDY1V6ssNxT3JGhSxfNbU_4zQWZ2S6B3lUZX0d5i74oRhw340V5UFq13YifZHi1Tf1Dew2E8QHK3Sj5Y0PlvEm&sig=AHIEtbRhL-vV_E5xyT3EKYdFWvMPWFhvEg"] https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:39F4Ptug0G0J:www.eclac.cl/de/agenda/9/13799/Final31.PDF+&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjbFh9ZA9hcSt_9Mu1m9bv95kg0o8FOX0VNdxXEuRSf1urYFxhDY1V6ssNxT3JGhSxfNbU_4zQWZ2S6B3lUZX0d5i74oRhw340V5UFq13YifZHi1Tf1Dew2E8QHK3Sj5Y0PlvEm&sig=AHIEtbRhL-vV_E5xyT3EKYdFWvMPWFhvEg[/URL] Page 5, the table shows that the average growth rates for the countries before they liberalised their economies. You could of course just say that this is correlation not causation. However, prematurely opening Latin American markets to powerful TNCs meant that what little industry those countries had was destroyed thus jobs were lost and the money wasn't being used to further develop the country and to build up industry. See what China does so well is that it produces domestic goods while controlling imports of consumer goods heavily. It means that people buy goods made in China so that the companies that produce said goods grow over time and are thus able to produce better goods (using foreign machinery and knowledge brought over without ceding control to foreign companies) which can then be sold internationally as well. India's economy was beginning to skyrockets already before heavy liberalisation. India neglected trade completely early on, which was a bad idea of course. The oligarchs themselves don't destroy the economy, but the money could be used wiser if it were partially in the hands of the state. It's difficult to trust reports created by an organisation that so far has demonstrated an inability to acknowledge it's failures in promoting growth-friendly economic policies. You're right protectionism wouldn't help the US that much. However, more interventionism by the state and a reduction in the power of corporations would certainly benefit the US people. Comparative advantage is pretty much false. In the 50's you would have said that South Korea shouldn't produce cars or HiFI products because it can't do them well and now it can do them extremely well. The US used to be extremely innovative when they pumped a lot of money into R&D, so should they simply stop focusing on developing new technologies? Calling me out on debating methods is pretty lame considering you never answered my question about the Chinese economy.[/QUOTE] I didn't say America was inefficient, I said it would become inefficient if we put protectionist policies in effect. Your argument about South America's growth rates is interesting, I'll need to look more into it. I still don't see why you think India's economy was skyrocketing before liberalization, the data clearly contradicts that. I also argue with the whole "oligarchs can't use money as wisely and the state" idea. Governments are infamous for being bad at managing money. I'll also need to look more into the World Bank. And focusing on the US's comparative advantage doesn't mean giving up on new technologies. First off all, innovation pretty much is US's comparative advantage. We have invented so much stuff, it's crazy. Plus, it's not about focusing on what you are best at (established technologies) but what you are better at relative to other countries. Finally, comparative advantage is not some steadfast rule. But if you do produce something you aren't good at producing, you better improve quickly. I ignored you statements about the Chinese economy so I could focus on America's economy, the original debate. And it's better to ignore a statement than use nonsense to "refute" it. Can you please elaborate on how state intervention and reduction of corporate power would help the economy or the people? I see no need for state intervention. [editline]5th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Bulletspong3;37094980][url]http://www.usdebtclock.org/[/url] - Here is your answer, America is doomed because you have to pay off $181,350 each.[/QUOTE] so? we are still at the top of the world in pretty much every measurable way. We have the strongest economy, strongest military, best athletes, and invented most modern conveniences. I think you're just jealous.

Hm..probably just a snag, but we do seriously need to get over the "It's my way or the highway" crap in congress. A lot of things like asking the more wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes would definitely help and is completely fair. I still don't know why it is up for debate.

[QUOTE=Izua Tekami;37111875]Hm..probably just a snag, but we do seriously need to get over the "It's my way or the highway" crap in congress. A lot of things like asking the more wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes would definitely help and is completely fair. I still don't know why it is up for debate.[/QUOTE] what does fair share of taxes mean? they already pay a higher percentage. If you want people to pay a fair share, drop taxes on the wealthy and up taxes on the poor/middle class.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37115436]what does fair share of taxes mean? they already pay a higher percentage. If you want people to pay a fair share, drop taxes on the wealthy and up taxes on the poor/middle class.[/QUOTE] FairTax is the best system in my opinion. Since there would be no income tax, all tax and government profit would be from purchased goods (except for a few staples like water, food, etc.). This means that the rich can no longer evade taxes and the sizable percent of the population that have illegal jobs (and therefore pay no taxes currently) would now pay tax to the government. It's completely fair, rich people spend lots of money so they pay more tax money than a poor man who spends less.

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;37115528]FairTax is the best system in my opinion. Since there would be no income tax, all tax and government profit would be from purchased goods (except for a few staples like water, food, etc.). This means that the rich can no longer evade taxes and the sizable percent of the population that have illegal jobs (and therefore pay no taxes currently) would now pay tax to the government. It's completely fair, rich people spend lots of money so they pay more tax money than a poor man who spends less.[/QUOTE] Unless I'm missing something, this means that sales taxes would have to be increased so much (assuming that government expenditures remain the same), everyone but the rich would be unable to buy anything.

A larger sales tax would also discourage spending, which is good for the economy. If anything, saving money should be taxed.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37116429]A larger sales tax would also discourage spending, which is good for the economy. If anything, saving money should be taxed.[/QUOTE] To poor people, spending is a matter of life or death. They don't buy extraneous things. They need to buy food and basic necessities in order to survive and provide for their basic needs.

It's stupid to think that the US is anywhere near close to collapse. There is no civil unrest and political and economic stability remain despite not being at their best. The US is still on the same line as the rest of the developed world, albeit walking the rope a little wobbly but when compared to Greece, Spain, France, Italy it's still in better shape. Also the arguement of resource based wars is fucking retarded. The only resource that would be worth it is oil but even than it's not worth it. Afghanistan and Iraq do not have enough oil to justify an Invasion and then a 9+ year occupation. When you factor in the amount of money spent in the wars (trillions without a doubt) and the amount of oil (for everything from fueling all those vehicles: tanks, IFVs, APCs, HMMWS, planes, jets, etc to transporting those vehicles and troops across the world, to powering AC in FOBs) it's just not worth it and it never will be.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;37116518]To poor people, spending is a matter of life or death. They don't buy extraneous things. They need to buy food and basic necessities in order to survive and provide for their basic needs.[/QUOTE] it still discourages spending. If bread prices go up by 10%, a lot of poor people will be going hungry.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37116562]it still discourages spending. If bread prices go up by 10%, a lot of poor people will be going hungry.[/QUOTE] I'm don't think I'm properly understanding you. Do you think poor people going hungry is a good thing?

[QUOTE=King Tiger;37116392]Unless I'm missing something, this means that sales taxes would have to be increased so much (assuming that government expenditures remain the same), everyone but the rich would be unable to buy anything.[/QUOTE] Not a huge amount, remember that the only people we are really income taxing are the middle class, as much of the lower class either get tax reduction or don't pay them at all because they have an illegal job and have no official income, while most of the rich don't pay many taxes because they have a bunch of bullshit tax loopholes they exploit. If we implemented a 12% income tax on all non-essential goods, It wouldn't be that bad, seriously, it's only an extra 12 bucks out of every 100, and the government would finally have enough money to get shit done. it's just fair. [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=King Tiger;37116518]To poor people, spending is a matter of life or death. They don't buy extraneous things. They need to buy food and basic necessities in order to survive and provide for their basic needs.[/QUOTE] Key words: [i]Except for necessities, like food and water[/i]. Those don't get taxed, only non-essential goods, like dragon dildoes or a flatscreen TV.