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

Amurrrica is doomed in the sense that we will probably degrade into a second-world country see that Trillion Dollar Debt? No way am I going to believe for a second that we can turn it around with the current state of politics where nothing gets done.

I think its a bump. Enough people went crazy over Ron Paul this election to at least show some hope. As long as we try to suppress career politicians from getting to much power. Also there were several websites(I forget the names, something like "renew America" or something; the ones that let you vote for another candidate after they answered specific questions) that were dedicated to creating a third party candidate. As long as the majority of the people are smart enough to realize that it is not conservatives vs. liberals causing the problems. It's the people vs. the government

[QUOTE=BFG9000;37255720]Amurrrica is doomed in the sense that we will probably degrade into a second-world country see that Trillion Dollar Debt? No way am I going to believe for a second that we can turn it around with the current state of politics where nothing gets done.[/QUOTE] trillion dollar debt? who cares? the U.S. has had large amounts of debt for almost it's entire history (there has only been one year, 1835, where we had ZERO debt). Debt is not a problem. [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Publicly_Held_Federal_Debt_1790-2009.png[/t] (in case you're wondering, the numbers on the y axis are the percentage of GDP) [editline]15th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=therake6;37256492]I think its a bump. Enough people went crazy over Ron Paul this election to at least show some hope. As long as we try to suppress career politicians from getting to much power. Also there were several websites(I forget the names, something like "renew America" or something; the ones that let you vote for another candidate after they answered specific questions) that were dedicated to creating a third party candidate. As long as the majority of the people are smart enough to realize that it is not conservatives vs. liberals causing the problems. It's the people vs. the government[/QUOTE] I would hardly call people voting for Ron Paul a good thing. Ron Paul and the Tea Party are what scares me about America. And Ron Paul is a career politician. He has spent twenty-two years in Congress, and has been involved in politics for 36 years. And the majority of people do think it's about conservatives vs liberals. That's why the Republicans and Democrats are the two major parties, and have been for most of our history, thought they have gone by different names. Though I do agree that politicians that care more about their jobs than their morals are a bad thing, and that third parties are a good thing.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;37255720]Amurrrica is doomed in the sense that we will probably degrade into a second-world country see that Trillion Dollar Debt? No way am I going to believe for a second that we can turn it around with the current state of politics where nothing gets done.[/QUOTE] What does that mean? How could America become aligned with the Soviet Union? And why does having a large debt mean that the country will "degrade"?

[QUOTE=King Tiger;37263857]What does that mean? How could America become aligned with the Soviet Union? And why does having a large debt mean that the country will "degrade"?[/QUOTE] second world no longer means allied with the Soviet Union.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37263985]second world no longer means allied with the Soviet Union.[/QUOTE] When did it stop meaning that? Did it happen when people started making shit up?

[QUOTE=King Tiger;37264099]When did it stop meaning that? Did it happen when people started making shit up?[/QUOTE] when the Soviet Union collapsed, effectively destroying the Second World. The whole Three Worlds thing doesn't really mean anything when it comes to modern politics. I'm assuming he takes Second World to mean a second-rate country, that is neither dirt poor nor a world power. Similar to Mao's Three Worlds.

It should not be "the people vs. the government" that mindset is one of the reasons everything is shitty right now. The people are the government, and the government should come to the aid of the people. Sadly, we have libertarians and conservatives stopping it and sabotaging it at every turn. I know pointing fingers is old, but every since the 80s public services have been under constant attack. America will not degrade into a "second-world country", and the debt is not a huge huge deal in regards to its effects on the economy. Also, the fates/economies of America and Europe are fairly intertwined, so if one is failing, the other will also begin to fail. We should be thinking about the future of the first world as a whole.

[QUOTE=cat man;37264208]It should not be "the people vs. the government" that mindset is one of the reasons everything is shitty right now. The people are the government, and the government should come to the aid of the people. Sadly, we have libertarians and conservatives stopping it and sabotaging it at every turn. I know pointing fingers is old, but every since the 80s public services have been under constant attack. America will not degrade into a "second-world country", and the debt is not a huge huge deal in regards to its effects on the economy. Also, the fates/economies of America and Europe are fairly intertwined, so if one is failing, the other will also begin to fail. We should be thinking about the future of the first world as a whole.[/QUOTE] what's wrong with attacking public services? sometimes the government oversteps it's boundaries.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37264311]what's wrong with attacking public services? sometimes the government oversteps it's boundaries.[/QUOTE] How is education, healthcare, or services such as police or fire department overstepping boundaries?

[QUOTE=King Tiger;37264402]How is education, healthcare, or services such as police or fire department overstepping boundaries?[/QUOTE] I'm not saying education or police/fire departments are overstepping boundaries. I said that some public services do overstep the boundary. One prominent example is Social Security.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37264482]I'm not saying education or police/fire departments are overstepping boundaries. I said that some public services do overstep the boundary. One prominent example is Social Security.[/QUOTE] How?

[QUOTE=Megafan;37265112]How?[/QUOTE] because I don't think it's the governments job to provide retirement benefits. I think retirement benefits should be earned, either by saving yourself, or by working for a company that provides retirement benefits. I don't believe in income redistribution for the workers, so I see no reason why the retired should receive it.

What we're facing is no different than problems we faced 30, 50, and even 100 years ago. Our country is built on conflict, ideas, and hard work. We get through the conflict, to instill our ideas, and work hard to keep what we have. Just because our foreign policy is ridiculous doesn't mean others across the world should forget that behind the government and massive corporations are people like you or I struggling through similar bullshit. Is America doomed? No, maybe our old way of thinking is, but we must make way for change, a sort of social revolution.

[QUOTE=Earthen;37167759]Sorry if my replies are slow, I'm in the army right now so I can only get on FP on the weekends. What I meant was that India's economic growth rate was beginning to skyrocket before liberalisation as shown by your data. Governments are not infamous for managing money unwisely, however, it seems you took a more extreme version like the Soviet Union, which of course did not function. I mean that state intervention has been used effectively numerous times. We'll take Nokia as an example, the Finnish government subsidised its electronics department for 17 years before it even made a profit, then it became the largest mobile phone manufacturer in the world. It probably would not have achieved that without state intervention because some company like AT&T or whatever would have bought it. That subsidisation brought economic growth and jobs to Finland. Or we can look at South Korea when the state introduced five year plans which boosted the industrial side of the economy greatly. Innovation [B]was[/B] the US' comparative advantage. The US used to fund R&D heavily and now the government has a very small role in it which has been detrimental to the US economy and US inventiveness. Of course you better improve quickly and that is what countries can do when the government helps. I used the Chinese economy to back up my claims. Corporations are infamous for caring more about themselves than the people which is natural since they are profit driven. However, those corporations can actually do better in the long run if they help the people. Just look at shareholder value maximisation, it doesn't do shit for anyone in the long run and especially not for average people, but it gives a lot of money in the short run which is detrimental to economic growth. When is the last time a corporation actually did something amazing without government help?[/QUOTE] it was not skyrocketing before liberalization. It started to go up slightly, but in my original post I explained why that happened. Anyways, I think we can stop with India. And good point, some government intervention is a good thing. But Innovation is still the US's comparative advantage, whether or not the government funds R&D. Government spending is not what makes us innovative, it's our citizens that make us innovative. Tesla, Edison, Jobs, Zuckerberg, and many others all created innovative products without government funding. Of course, government spending is still essential in certain areas, like spaceflight. But guess what? the government still spends huge amounts of money on scientific research! I don't see what makes you think that the US has stopped funding R&D. can corporations do better in the long run by helping people? if they could, I'm sure some would have started doing it right now. The best business plan is to make lots of money in the short run, and then the next short run, ad infinitum. Your last remark is hilarious. When is the last time a corporation actually did something amazing without government help? All the time. Look at all the amazing stuff that Silicon Valley is doing. You sir, are delusional.

I don't think we are doomed, not yet anyways, but what do I know? I live in the woods.

Personally, I think we are about to be doomed. I have heard many rumours, mainly from economics advisers at a friends company, that we are headed for the worst financial meltdown of our lives. They have heard from their partners within the Central Bank of America (related to the Treasury) that the government is foreseeing, and telling banks to prepare for the meltdown to occur in late October. They say that this meltdown is related to "a perfect storm" of economic factors. Including but not limited to: the Midwest drought ramming up food prices, the sudden drop soon to occur in Gold prices, the US Mint system hitting the flash point of the inflation threshold (I'll elaborate in a minute), and finally, the upcoming election. As I said before, the US Mint is reaching the flash point of the inflation threshold. This threshold is commonly managed by the price of gold. Even though, after the 2008 meltdown, most US currency lost it's gold backing and became worthless paper. In fact, some of it still is. I have no idea on what percentage of the US dollar lost its gold backing, but I do know that amount of useless inflation caused by unbacked currency will explode when gold prices drop below the threshold. This massive inflation will ram prices through the roof. We'll be like pre-war Germany. This upcoming election will decide the fate of America. This is undoubtedly the most important election in America's modernized era. There is so much to lose. The divide between the views of Romney and Obama is what makes this so important. Never before has the divide been so large, the common ground found between them is limited to their campaign slogans. I won't argue the election here, but I do believe that this upcoming meltdown will be the downfall of America, and eventually, the entire world.

If these cancerous unions stick around, then yes. If we keep on borrowing more money just to pay for our commitments (Which are in no way an investment), then yes. If we don't begin taxing the 45% of citizens who do not pay taxes, then yes. If we try to become like Europe, then yes. Otherwise no.

[QUOTE=Adelle Zhu;37322041]Personally, I think we are about to be doomed. I have heard many rumours, mainly from economics advisers at a friends company, that we are headed for the worst financial meltdown of our lives. They have heard from their partners within the Central Bank of America (related to the Treasury) that the government is foreseeing, and telling banks to prepare for the meltdown to occur in late October. They say that this meltdown is related to "a perfect storm" of economic factors. Including but not limited to: the Midwest drought ramming up food prices, the sudden drop soon to occur in Gold prices, the US Mint system hitting the flash point of the inflation threshold (I'll elaborate in a minute), and finally, the upcoming election. As I said before, the US Mint is reaching the flash point of the inflation threshold. This threshold is commonly managed by the price of gold. Even though, after the 2008 meltdown, most US currency lost it's gold backing and became worthless paper. In fact, some of it still is. I have no idea on what percentage of the US dollar lost its gold backing, but I do know that amount of useless inflation caused by unbacked currency will explode when gold prices drop below the threshold. This massive inflation will ram prices through the roof. We'll be like pre-war Germany. This upcoming election will decide the fate of America. This is undoubtedly the most important election in America's modernized era. There is so much to lose. The divide between the views of Romney and Obama is what makes this so important. Never before has the divide been so large, the common ground found between them is limited to their campaign slogans. I won't argue the election here, but I do believe that this upcoming meltdown will be the downfall of America, and eventually, the entire world.[/QUOTE] what sort of crackpot economists do you know? Yes the Midwest drought will drive up food prices, but I doubt it will be as bad enough to cause a depression. Second, the drop in gold prices will not affect our currency. Our currency is a fiat currency, it is not backed by gold. So no, the US Mint is not reaching a flash point. And no, the upcoming election will not cause the downfall of America, or the world. You guys are so pessimistic. Recessions are part of the business cycle, they happen a lot. [editline]19th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Raunchy;37322044]If these cancerous unions stick around, then yes. If we keep on borrowing more money just to pay for our commitments (Which are in no way an investment), then yes. If we don't begin taxing the 45% of citizens who do not pay taxes, then yes. If we try to become like Europe, then yes. Otherwise no.[/QUOTE] what... Unions are bad, but they are no way destroying America. Borrowing more money will not destroy America. As I showed before, we have almost always had debt. Unless you show proof that 45% of Americans don't pay taxes, I call bullshit. And what's wrong with Europe? they aren't as good as us, but they are by no means doomed.

[QUOTE=Adelle Zhu;37322041]Personally, I think we are about to be doomed. I have heard many rumours, mainly from economics advisers at a friends company, that we are headed for the worst financial meltdown of our lives. They have heard from their partners within the Central Bank of America (related to the Treasury) that the government is foreseeing, and telling banks to prepare for the meltdown to occur in late October.[/QUOTE] Rumours is the important word here. Secondly, if they can foresee it, why is no action being taken? [QUOTE=Adelle Zhu;37322041]They say that this meltdown is related to "a perfect storm" of economic factors. Including but not limited to: the Midwest drought ramming up food prices, the sudden drop soon to occur in Gold prices, the US Mint system hitting the flash point of the inflation threshold (I'll elaborate in a minute), and finally, the upcoming election.[/QUOTE] The food prices aren't hit too badly, and inflation isn't really going to get too high, there is a lot of work done in regards to controlling inflation, and it turns out that seeing inflation rates like those in early 1920s Germany are a bit impossible to say the least. [QUOTE=Adelle Zhu;37322041]As I said before, the US Mint is reaching the flash point of the inflation threshold. This threshold is commonly managed by the price of gold. Even though, after the 2008 meltdown, most US currency lost it's gold backing and became worthless paper. In fact, some of it still is. I have no idea on what percentage of the US dollar lost its gold backing, but I do know that amount of useless inflation caused by unbacked currency will explode when gold prices drop below the threshold. This massive inflation will ram prices through the roof. We'll be like pre-war Germany.[/QUOTE] But the dollar isn't backed with gold at all, it hasn't been for years. (In fact I think pretty much every country abandoned the gold standard) Plus how is the government money worthless when gold is actually pretty much worthless too? Having a gold standard is horrible because you are going to have all this gold you need to mine that is then going to sit in a bank vault somewhere. [QUOTE=Adelle Zhu;37322041]This upcoming election will decide the fate of America. This is undoubtedly the most important election in America's modernized era. There is so much to lose. The divide between the views of Romney and Obama is what makes this so important. Never before has the divide been so large, the common ground found between them is limited to their campaign slogans.[/QUOTE] Every election decides the fate of America. Well, for 4 years that is. [QUOTE=Adelle Zhu;37322041]I won't argue the election here, but I do believe that this upcoming meltdown will be the downfall of America, and eventually, the entire world.[/QUOTE] Sounds feasible.

[QUOTE=Raunchy;37322044]If these cancerous unions stick around, then yes. If we keep on borrowing more money just to pay for our commitments (Which are in no way an investment), then yes. If we don't begin taxing the 45% of citizens who do not pay taxes, then yes. If we try to become like Europe, then yes. Otherwise no.[/QUOTE] What is wrong with unions and how will they cause America to be "doomed"? How is borrowing money bad when the alternative is to run out of money and fail to pay for basic government operations such as pensions and salaries for government workers and soldiers? And how will borrowing lead to America's "doom"? What do you mean by "45% of citizens who do not pay taxes"? I have never before heard this statistic, or anything close to it. I want sources. What is wrong with Europe and how will "becom(ing) like Europe" "doom" the U.S.?

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37137652]but it's also bad because it discourages spending. How about a flat tax rate, with no exemptions. The best part about flat tax rates is that individuals wouldn't even really need to pay taxes, because their employer could pay it instead.[/QUOTE] Talking about discouraging and encouraging spending, the federal reserve currently has a historically low Federal Funds Rate of 0.25%. The Federal Reserve is increasing the M1 by quite historic amounts. In theory, the central bank is overextending its line of credit, encouraging bad loans by setting the value of money too low. Many economists believe that the 2008 housing bubble was created by this bad monetary policy.

doomed, too many liberals nowadays.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;37325030]How is borrowing money bad when the alternative is to run out of money and fail to pay for basic government operations such as pensions and salaries for government workers and soldiers? And how will borrowing lead to America's "doom"?[/QUOTE] They have to pay interest on that money. The trillions of dollars in debt is simply unsustainable, it is never going to be paid off (unless of course they just try to print their way out of it). What you describe isn't a bad alternative, as you appear to be implying, it's a painful, but necessarily correction of an unsustainable system, one that is inevitably going to take place.

[QUOTE=Noble;37353059]They have to pay interest on that money. The trillions of dollars in debt is simply unsustainable, it is never going to be paid off (unless of course they just try to print their way out of it). What you describe isn't a bad alternative, as you appear to be implying, it's a painful, but necessarily correction of an unsustainable system, one that is inevitably going to take place.[/QUOTE] Every government on earth has needed to borrow money at some stage (Even the USSR). What other way is there of getting in enough cash to slow down borrowing and pay for many critical social and political reforms that are crucial today?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37355443]Every government on earth has needed to borrow money at some stage (Even the USSR).[/quote] Yeah, I'm just saying the spending and debt levels right now are unsustainable. The government is broke but they don't want to cut spending. [quote]What other way is there of getting in enough cash to slow down borrowing and pay for many critical social and political reforms that are crucial today?[/QUOTE] They could raise taxes, which could cripple the economy even further, or they could inflate (more likely). They won't cut spending because any serious cuts that are proposed will be political suicide. I'm not sure which reforms you consider to be "crucial", in my view none of them are. I think what's crucial is that the US government needs to admit it can't pay, default on it's unsustainable debts that are never going to get paid back, and then cut spending down to manageable levels. It will cause immense economic pain, but if they don't do it, they'll just have an even more massive economic crisis on their hands later, if not a complete collapse of the system.

[QUOTE=Noble;37355917]Yeah, I'm just saying the spending and debt levels right now are unsustainable. The government is broke but they don't want to cut spending.[/QUOTE] Yes, so we must be able to find a possible solution to this problem. [QUOTE=Noble;37355917]They could raise taxes, which could cripple the economy even further[/QUOTE] How would raising taxes cause this? Raising taxes is fine as long as you are spending the money on useful endeavours. The money still moves around in circulation. [QUOTE=Noble;37355917]or they could inflate (more likely). They won't cut spending because any serious cuts that are proposed will be political suicide.[/QUOTE] It would also be very detrimental to the economy and people as well. [QUOTE=Noble;37355917]I'm not sure which reforms you consider to be "crucial", in my view none of them are.[/QUOTE] Well, funding the barebone feasible minimum of a government would be one. There's also the army, the police, the firefighting force, emergency stockpiles of various things, the central banking system, basic infrastructure, the list goes on. [QUOTE=Noble;37355917]I think what's crucial is that the US government needs to admit it can't pay, default on it's unsustainable debts that are never going to get paid back, and then cut spending down to manageable levels. It will cause immense economic pain, but if they don't do it, they'll just have an even more massive economic crisis on their hands later, if not a complete collapse of the system.[/QUOTE] The only problem is that by defaulting on their loan, that would cause a massive worldwide economic crisis.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37356177]Yes, so we must be able to find a possible solution to this problem.[/quote] Well I think the solution is pretty clear, they have to stop spending. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37356177]How would raising taxes cause this? Raising taxes is fine as long as you are spending the money on useful endeavours. The money still moves around in circulation.[/quote] Except that when you tax someones money away, that was money that could have been invested elsewhere in the economy, like employing workers and growing your business. Raising taxes isn't fine because employers will just react by downsizing their business and firing employees. Lower income people are already living paycheck to paycheck and can't take any more taxes, so raising taxes on them isn't feasible. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37356177]It would also be very detrimental to the economy and people as well.[/quote] In the short term, but not the long term. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37356177]Well, funding the barebone feasible minimum of a government would be one. There's also the army, the police, the firefighting force, emergency stockpiles of various things, the central banking system, basic infrastructure, the list goes on.[/quote] Well here is where we disagree, since I happen to hold the view that the private sector can provide all of these things aside from the central bank which, I would argue, should not exist. The central bank isn't funded by the government anyway, they're self funded. They have the ability to create money out of thin air. And even if we disagree on those, there are other areas of spending that are far from what could be described as a "barebone minimum of government" - such as social security, medicare, the war on drugs, etc. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37356177]The only problem is that by defaulting on their loan, that would cause a massive worldwide economic crisis.[/QUOTE] Yeah, like I said it would be painful, but if they don't do it, the debt will continue to grow and the crisis will only be exacerbated later.

[QUOTE=Noble;37356312]Except that when you tax someones money away, that was money that could have been invested elsewhere in the economy, like employing workers and growing your business.[/QUOTE] The money isn't taken out of the economy when it is taxed however, it stays within it, and the government will either use it to pay for a various government body or will use it to invest themselves. [QUOTE=Noble;37356312]Raising taxes isn't fine because employers will just react by downsizing their business and firing employees. Lower income people are already living paycheck to paycheck and can't take any more taxes, so raising taxes on them isn't feasible.[/QUOTE] Which is why you increase taxes on the rich/wealthy. [QUOTE=Noble;37356312]In the short term, but not the long term.[/QUOTE] It depends on ones definition of long term. Long term could be possibly decades. We have all sorts of wars, peak oil, peak phosphorus, energy crisis, political and social revolutions and massive sweeping changes throughout human society at the moment. Having the biggest economic collapse in human history in the middle of all this isn't exactly the wisest thing to do. [QUOTE=Noble;37356312]Well here is where we disagree, since I happen to hold the view that the private sector can provide all of these things aside from the central bank which, I would argue, should not exist. The central bank isn't funded by the government anyway, they're self funded. They have the ability to create money out of thin air.[/QUOTE] The first issue is that mercenaries aren't restricted by various international conventions, and are free to commit various war crimes. The fact they work for the highest payer means that you will get a situation like late medieval Italy where every country used disloyal mercenaries to do their bidding. Plus a non-government controlled fire force seems ludicrous to say the least. What is there to stop a private fire force blackmailing somebody whose house is on fire? The central bank is however controlled by the government. The government is able to control the money supply, inflation, and keep many other various factors in check. If it doesn't, you are going to get problems once the unregulated free market gets going. [QUOTE=Noble;37356312]And even if we disagree on those, there are other areas of spending that are far from what could be described as a "barebone minimum of government" - such as social security, medicare, the war on drugs, etc.[/QUOTE] There's a lot of problems and issues with that stuff, but it is rather fundamental that universal healthcare should be a human right. [QUOTE=Noble;37356312]Yeah, like I said it would be painful, but if they don't do it, the debt will continue to grow and the crisis will only be exacerbated later.[/QUOTE] Debt has always been growing. Inflation always happens. You would need an alternate universe if you wanted to find a country that didn't have national debt that didn't grow.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37356539]The money isn't taken out of the economy when it is taxed however, it stays within it, and the government will either use it to pay for a various government body or will use it to invest themselves.[/quote] Yeah I'm not disputing that. I'm saying when it stays within the private sector it can be used more efficiently. The government will tend to spend on things that are politically popular, not what's most efficient. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37356539]Which is why you increase taxes on the rich/wealthy.[/quote] That wouldn't even put a dent in the national debt and it may just cause them to absorb their losses elsewhere. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37356539]It depends on ones definition of long term. Long term could be possibly decades. We have all sorts of wars, peak oil, peak phosphorus, energy crisis, political and social revolutions and massive sweeping changes throughout human society at the moment. Having the biggest economic collapse in human history in the middle of all this isn't exactly the wisest thing to do.[/quote] But the collapse is coming regardless whether they cut spending or not. I'm arguing that they can have a less painful crisis by addressing the problem now versus a bigger crisis later. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37356539]The first issue is that mercenaries aren't restricted by various international conventions, and are free to commit various war crimes. The fact they work for the highest payer means that you will get a situation like late medieval Italy where every country used disloyal mercenaries to do their bidding. Plus a non-government controlled fire force seems ludicrous to say the least. What is there to stop a private fire force blackmailing somebody whose house is on fire?[/quote] In the system I envision there is a court system that enables enforcement of private property rights, so that would not be a plausible scenario. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37356539]The central bank is however controlled by the government. The government is able to control the money supply, inflation, and keep many other various factors in check. If it doesn't, you are going to get problems once the unregulated free market gets going.[/quote] They actually aren't controlled by the government, if we're talking about the Federal Reserve. They are a private group of bankers. The government might "pressure" them to do things though. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37356539]Debt has always been growing. Inflation always happens. You would need an alternate universe if you wanted to find a country that didn't have national debt that didn't grow.[/QUOTE] Actually debt was pretty flat for a very long time. It has only been growing at these rates in the last several decades. We had relatively low levels of debt in the past yet the country prospered and grew. I don't believe that large piles of debt necessarily helps economic growth.