So how Long will This last: How would you define the US Global Political and Economic Position Today and Moving into the Next Half Century?

[Dbone]

In a democracy, or republic like the US, it's difficult to blame politicians for the demise or rise of economic power. It's the people who vote the politicians into power. It is not majority rules, but the will of the people as a whole.

As US President Ronald Regan said, "All great change in America begins at the dinner table."

As it could seem to many, there's not much family time at the dinner table these days.

[Maxismoke]

They may just be ballpark and that is only food aid

Fair enough. What.'s the source for the data?

[Smallclub]

ah hem… someone is NOT winning a Lusitania Gran Reserva…

[thebigk]

This country is filling up with people who want what others have without working for it. It's not just the so called greed at the top % of the wealth chain. Middle class is getting fleeced and fed up with having sand pounded up their ass.

This is so true

I live it everyday I grew up broke standing in hand out lines with my mom. She is now a social worker who help people find a way to pay there bills get stuff for free just because they don't want to work

My sister is one of them she has two kids with a third on the way Her and her boyfriend live with my mom neither work and want the county to pay for everything And i see this going on with the younger ones all the time

I myself told myself when standing in line that my kids will never have to worry about there next meal or the Christmas gifts (Christmas sucked as a kid ) or any of that

[thebigk]

Fair enough. What.'s the source for the data?

To be honest i seen it on Modern Marvels a TV show on the History Channel

[Marker]

In a democracy, or republic like the US, it's difficult to blame politicians for the demise or rise of economic power. It's the people who vote the politicians into power. It is not majority rules, but the will of the people as a whole.

As US President Ronald Regan said, "All great change in America begins at the dinner table."

As it could seem to many, there's not much family time at the dinner table these days.

The problem isn't the voting. It is the lying and cheating to get in office. Then the elected official doesn't do what they said they would. They also vote different from what their voting public majority tell them to.

Good example: (don't read into this as *** rights etc. It is purely a real example of what I think is wrong).

Local state representative gets elected on family values etc. He is a good guy. Was my social studies teacher and wrestling coach in high school.

We had a vote for a marriage amendment in the state legislature late last year. It was to define marriage as one man, one woman by statute. There was a vote at the same time he was elected that overwhelmingly voted for this amendment. He also ran on the platform that he would hold up 'traditional' values if elected.

When the vote came up he voted against the amendment to the state constitution. He said he felt it wasn't right and could not vote for it.

Sorry but you were elected to represent the people who voted for you. Not go against everything you got voted in for because you changed your mind. I don't care if it was peer pressure from some lobby or group. Your feelings changed for it. Whatever. On your next election run on the platform of change. You promised one thing and did another.

--

That I feel is wrong of an elected official to do. You are to serve the people. Not yourself or a lobby. I will not take the blame for the person who is supposed to represent us voting against the people that voted him in.

This deteriorates democracy.

Now to more on topic since blaming elected officials wasn't part of it.

The US can certainly come back from a big recession. We already did. We might have another one. Let's hope it doesn't come to that. Many, many economies depend on the US to do well. Hopefully they will reinvest in the United States and give us a little boost along the way.

[KoreanCowboy]

Not sure what "Which country provides most other countries with food and monetary subsidies?" means, but in percent of GDP foreign aid the US is #19

And yes, the US pays some of the cost of the UN, 22% to be exact.

So if I give 50% of my yearly income then people will say I'm more generous than the US even though the US gives $23,530,000,000 which is double the next nearest country? I don't get how percentage of GDP is any indication of giving.

And we provide a home for the UN. and that 22% is again almost double what any other country provides.

According to Foodaid.org, the US supplies about 60% of the food aid in the world.

http://foodaid.org/resources/studies-and-reports/

Again, all of this is why the US will not soon be forgotten in the world economy. We're too big to be left out.

[joeypots]

We carry the big stick. The US military budget is larger than the next nine military budgets combined. We could argue ten, and eleven, but I don't exaggerate. If anything is going to bankrupt the US, it's defense. It's our biggest foreign aid package and the largest domestic welfare program. Again, the energy revolution is the most significant factor in our stature world wide. Since we are on track to produce more oil than the Saudis and glut the world market with natural gas we have a lot of time left to be the dominate force in politics and economics. If the wealth of the nation's fossil fuels is used to build and maintain the country rather than enrich a very few, we will be envy of the world for the foreseeable future.

[Maxismoke]

So if I give 50% of my yearly income then people will say I'm more generous than the US even though the US gives $23,530,000,000 which is double the next nearest country? I don't get how percentage of GDP is any indication of giving.

And we provide a home for the UN. and that 22% is again almost double what any other country provides.

According to Foodaid.org, the US supplies about 60% of the food aid in the world.

http://foodaid.org/resources/studies-and-reports/

Again, all of this is why the US will not soon be forgotten in the world economy. We're too big to be left out.

Of course you are more generous!

Someone giving up 50% of their disposable income is more generous than someone giving up 0.005% of theirs.

They may not giving more in absolute numbers perhaps, but that's something completely different.

I didn't have a clue about the food aid. Very nice to hear. Commendable to help others like that!

[Hoshneer]

Well stated KC. The numbers can be figured anyway you want to but KoreanCowboy is right.

Also do these numbers include private donations as well or is it just what the government gives?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

[ptrthgr8]

Oh boy... where to start on this one.

I do think the influence of the USA is diminishing to a degree, but I don't think it's entirely bad that this seems to be the case. The US has spent the last two generations trying to be the world's police force, waging a war on drugs that can't possibly be won (and creates criminals out of thin air), trying to fight terror (and finding terror everywhere as a result), spending money as quickly as it can be printed, and generally sticking its big nose into everyone's business as often as it can.

I think it comes down to a matter of scalability. The US does not have a republic in the truest sense of the word because it's impossible for each member of the US Congress to effectively represent ~587,000 citizens. This complete lack of scalability means that the professional political class will remain a constant and it's in their best interest to print, print, print, and spend, spend, spend. That's how they get the votes they need each election cycle to remain in office for decade upon decade. The US won't stop spending money because the US can't stop spending money. We've all heard about the inertia of government, right? Indeed.

I think what's most likely to happen is that the union will splinter apart, much like the former Soviet Union did. At some point in the near future (thinking in historic terms, so let's say the next 50-100 years or so) it's only going to take one State of a small group of States to split off and go their own way. Then others will go. And it won't be like 1861, either, because it's not a North/South question. It could happen anywhere and everywhere. I for one would welcome it. I would much rather see several smaller republics of neighboring States who share common cause working together to make their republics better for the citizens of those republics. Government would be more local and representation would be more to scale. Republics that got it right would thrive, while republics that got it wrong would wither away, rather than being propped up by the resources of the other republics. Competition among the States/republics would lead to prosperity and greatness once again.

So, yes, I do think the USA's influence is diminishing. But that's okay. It's only a matter of time before the republics that were once part of the USA will return to positions of prominence and influence.

Cheers,

~ Greg ~

[Habano]

LMAO.

Now let's start the thread on how the Aussie and Canadians are slipping....

This thread is asking for nothing but trouble!

And what's funny is how many people want to live the American dream!!

Ok ok, just kidding. Good humor!

[Habano]

By the way, Rob paid me to make the comments/post above so he could keep the PGR himself.

Thanks for the PGR Rob!!

[srbbones]

The answer to that question depends on both internal factors in the US, and external factors

Internal factors include the value of the dollar ie: Does quantitative easing go on forever, thus diluting the value of the dollar more? Does the US continue to be unable to curb its deficit? Is the US going to cut back on being the "world police" more? The answer to these questions seem to be "yes", suggesting continued diminution of US economic and geopolitical position.

External factors include: How capable is another nation going to be at supplanting the US? Many had assumed China would fill the gap. However, it looks like the profound corruption at the top may be a limiting factor. My money is on Russia: They have many problems, but:

-They have many national resources

-Putin can "keep his eye on the goal" in ways a leader in a pure democracy could not: He could call for sacrifices by the public that would get a US president voted out, but could result in a much better long term position. Putin is very nationalistic, smart and ruthless. Things like strength and unity from the west could stop him, but that isn't happening.

So, my son is learning Russian......

To late for me. I am just hoping and stocking up my OLH before the US dollar is worth half an AUS dollar. Then Habanos will be too much for me.

[Fosgate]

This deteriorates democracy.

The United States is NOT a Democracy. The United States is a Republic with a Democratic election process. The Bill of Rights is what keeps us from falling into the mob rule of Democracy or Socialism. You know, that ancient document that some politicians claim is no longer relevant. May seem nitpicky but I hate listening to people who say it's law, we passed it so it must be right, the majority approved it. Might does not make right and neither does an unethical law that violates the inalienable rights given to one by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

Politicians only follow the business of being a politician and they stand for nothing more than getting themselves reelected. To stand for anything means alienating enough people to not get you reelected. Who goes to the pols to vote? Certainly not many of the people who are busy working two jobs and raising kids while barely squeaking by. Simply put the voting class is no longer the working middle class. Did anyone really wonder what redistribution of wealth means? It means the elimination of the middle class. Your either poor or wealthy.

http://www.pewresearch.org/key-data-points/the-middle-class-pew-research-key-data-points/

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2008/4/demographics%20teixeira/04_demographics_teixeira.pdf

It's this class warfare that is dividing our country and causing much mistrust with not only our leadership but each other. We used to be able to sit down and debate things in a rational manner and now it just becomes a finger pointing session of who's fault it is rather than trying to come up with a viable solution. I really do not see this changing anytime soon. I think our government has written enough laws to put enough holes in the constitution that the next stage of government evolution is inevitable. Some are trying to speed it along faster than others. We are becoming more of democracy of mob rule and as Plato wrote;

"Next, the oligarchy declines into a democracy. The insatiable desire to attain more money leads to a practice of lending money at high interests. Many in the city are driven to utter poverty while a few thrive. The impoverished sit idly in the city hating those with wealth and plotting revolution. The rich, in turn, pretend not to notice the dissatisfied masses. Finally, agitated by the stinging drones, the poor revolt, killing some rich, and expelling the rest. They set up a new constitution in which everyone remaining has an equal share in ruling the city. They give out positions of power pretty much by lot, with no notice of who is most fit for what role. In this city the guiding priority is freedom. Everyone is free to say what they like and to arrange their life as they please. There is complete license. We, therefore, find the greatest variety of character traits in this city. What we do not find is any order or harmony. No one occupies the appropriate roles."

"The oligarchic man is ruled by his necessary desires, but his son, the democratic man, is soon overcome by unnecessary desires. Whereas the father was a miser who only wanted to hoard his money, the son comes to appreciate all the lavish pleasures that money can buy. Manipulated by bad associates, he abandons reverence and moderation and begins to regard anarchy as freedom, extravagance as magnificence, and shamelessness as courage. When he is older, though, some of his virtues return and he is sometimes pulled toward moderation. Yet he thinks all pleasures (those of moderation and of indulgence) are equal, and he yields to whichever one strikes his fancy at the moment. There is no order or necessity to his life.

In the last stage of degeneration, democracy, the most free city, descends into tyranny, the most enslaved. The insatiable desire for freedom causes the city to neglect the necessities of proper ruling. The drones stir up trouble again. In the democracy, this class is even fiercer than in the oligarchy because they usually end up becoming the dominant political figures. There are two other classes in the democracy other than the drones: there are those who are most naturally organized and so become wealthy, and then there are those who work with their hands and take little part in politics. The drones deceive both these other classes, inciting them against each other. They try to convince the poor that the rich are oligarchs, and they try to convince the rich that the poor are going to revolt. In their fear, the rich try to limit the freedoms of the poor and in so doing come to resemble oligarchs. In response, the poor revolt. The leader of this revolt—the drone who stirs up the people—becomes the tyrant when the poor people triumph. He kills all the good people for fear that they will supplant him, then enslaves everyone else so that he can steal from them to support his lavish and extravagant life-style. He also needs to constantly make war, to distract people from what he is doing. He must pander to the worst segments of society—the other drones—to make them his bodyguards."

http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/republic/section8.rhtml

[Marker]

Fosgate. It does deteriorate the democratic side of how our elections work. Hence why I said it deteriorates democracy. Keep on topic please.

[ptrthgr8]

...and neither does an unethical law that violates the inalienable rights given to one by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution...

I don't necessarily disagree with much of what you wrote, but I just wanted to point out that the BoR and Constitution neither created nor granted rights to anyone. The BoR and Constitution only affirmed pre-existing rights. I.e. those inalienable rights were in existence long before 1789.

Cheers,

~ Greg ~

[Paul3]

Surprised, pleasantly so, that this thread has come this far without going completely off the rails. I think a fair majority of the bigger points have been made, plenty of opinion/interpretation, mixed with some facts. Personally I don't think things are quite as bad as we think they are...I will caveat that by saying that I do not think we're moving in the right direction politically, socially or economically, but I would argue the rate at which we're traveling down that road.

I'll make two points that I think have a significant amount of weight in 90% of any discussion having to do with the future of my beloved country. The first, I have always believed that attitude is infectious, good or bad. That's not to say that we can simply wish our problems away skipping down the street whistling our way to a brighter future, but IMO there is a pervassive negative attitude in every corner of our communities that has taken root and continues to grow. That leads to my second point. Is it just me or does it seem near impossible to get anyone to compromise or simply accept another persons argument/opinion without turning it into an us v them personal attack? People get so worried about giving in or being one-up'd by the other guy that we don't see the forest for the trees.

Example, a couple guys here want to argue who gives more to the world based on GDP v actual dollars! What could epitomize losing sight of the real conversation any more than that? Both wrong and both right, honestly. The real irony is that it makes not one iota of difference which country gives more or how you choose to quantify it. We ought to simply be happy that we're all able to give something and hopefully make some kind difference in the world.

Rant off.

[ptrthgr8]

Is it just me or does it seem near impossible to get anyone to compromise or simply accept another persons argument/opinion without turning it into an us v them personal attack?

I think it mostly depends upon the topic at hand. Where I work people make compromises all the time to get projects completed or to meet goals, projections, etc. But in terms of politics, I think you're right - there is a lot of polarization out there. But if you ask me (and you sorta did ) I really think there needs to be more polarization, not less. For the last ~60 years the US (domestically speaking) has been trying to make equal outcomes for everyone, limiting citizen's ability to freely associate with other citizens, and generally spending far too much money (domestically and internationally) for what certainly seems to be very little gain. We're where we are today not despite everything the government has done over the last ~60 years... we're here largely because of it.

So, yeah... I would like to see more people saying "no" to much of what the government is doing. If we can actually get back to a place where the federal government isn't touching every aspect of your life (and I really doubt you can think of something that isn't somehow touched by the feds), I think we'd all be in a much better place and back on a path that leads to greater prosperity for everyone who cares to work for it.

~ Greg ~

[StingMeadery]

The monoculture of "progress"'is undermining the U.S. Economy.

They are no longer leading the world.

The disempowering of the American people through lack of nutritional validity in their food chain is catastrophic.

Fast food and faster farming mentality.

You are what you eat people and on supermarket shelves in the U.S. 80% of all product is derived from GMO corn.

The majority of Beef cattle don't even know what grass is and spend their entire lives being force fed GMO corn on huge concrete pads...their effluent is so toxic it kills the land!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Marker]

The monoculture of "progress"'is undermining the U.S. Economy.

They are no longer leading the world.

The disempowering of the American people through lack of nutritional validity in their food chain is catastrophic.

Fast food and faster farming mentality.

You are what you eat people and on supermarket shelves in the U.S. 80% of all product is derived from GMO corn.

The majority of Beef cattle don't even know what grass is and spend their entire lives being force fed GMO corn on huge concrete pads...their effluent is so toxic it kills the land!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

wut?

[AlohaStyle]

Uh oh, Rob has been drinking too much of that rare cuban rum and started a political thread!?! lol

I feel that a lot of things are cyclical and it just so happens that last 6 years have been a bad economical time for the US and the likes of China and a few other countries have risen to the occasion. I don't know how accurate it is in historical records, but I remember growing up remembering that Japan was the up and coming country that was pressing the USA for economic and global prosperity. The auto industry spurred on the electronic industry etc, etc. I remember reading and hearing stories that the US needed to get its act together to say ahead of Japan's progress.

Now it's China that the world is talking about. With that said, is it another cycle in world's chain of events? Look at China's population, could they do even better in the technology industry if the government didn't dictate what can and cannot be done? Could the US take back more control in manufacturing if they didn't outsource so many jobs? What would happen to some countries if the US didn't outsource so much manufacturing?

The US is a big country and the people are free to dream up and implement any business ideas, as long as it fits within the laws of the country. Technology can happen anywhere in the world, it only make sense that people around the world will come up with ideas that will spurn an economic development.

[Paul3]

I think it mostly depends upon the topic at hand. Where I work people make compromises all the time to get projects completed or to meet goals, projections, etc. But in terms of politics, I think you're right - there is a lot of polarization out there. But if you ask me (and you sorta did ) I really think there needs to be more polarization, not less. For the last ~60 years the US (domestically speaking) has been trying to make equal outcomes for everyone, limiting citizen's ability to freely associate with other citizens, and generally spending far too much money (domestically and internationally) for what certainly seems to be very little gain. We're where we are today not despite everything the government has done over the last ~60 years... we're here largely because of it.

So, yeah... I would like to see more people saying "no" to much of what the government is doing. If we can actually get back to a place where the federal government isn't touching every aspect of your life (and I really doubt you can think of something that isn't somehow touched by the feds), I think we'd all be in a much better place and back on a path that leads to greater prosperity for everyone who cares to work for it.

~ Greg ~

I should have specified that in terms of people not able or willing to compromise that I was focusing on politics...as you pointed out. I do readily admit that we do need two sides to every conversation if for no other reason than to keep ourselves in check, no one party or group should maintain ultimate control IMHO. The system of checks and balances is wonderful in theory, but over time our politicians have found ways to move in, under, over, around and through that system in what I believe is simply a disregard for the intent behind said system.

I'm not sure I agree wholeheartedly with the need for more polarization...I think we've got plenty already and the problems it causes are self evident. I do agree completely with the desire to see more people stand up and say "no" to what Uncle Sam is doing (i.e. picking and choosing which laws to enforce, spending tax payer dollars like they grew on trees). Not necessarily in the armed militia marching on D.C. sense, but at the polls, with intelligence, perspective and thought...vote em out. In addition to the people, I would like to start hearing the government start saying "no" a bit more when it comes to spending our money. I just don't see the politician up there that is willing to make the hard and often unpopular choice when it comes to the latest pet project that is going to save the country....for the low, low price of another 1/2 billion dollars. I would pay to see some real accountability on the Hill.

Paul

[shlomo]

To keep this very succint and on point;

I would define the American global political position as "I'm right, you are wrong and it is my duty to fix you. Sometimes it pays better for me to be wrong and still try to fix something as long as it benefits me. The entire country's international policy is mirrored by many of the population where it is often looking out for number 1. Not criticizing, nor saying it is a good or bad thing. Just the way I view it. For what its worth, I have agreed, at least to a point, with most of what the USA has done globally (large scale projects) over the past couple decades.

As for the American economic position, I see it as a super rich guy, who is still super rich, but is quickly being taken over by the "nouveau riche". Some will take it all in stride and be happy with what they have. Others will become incredibly envious and will go down one of two paths. Path one is to try and keep up with the Jones' by looking inwards and moving forward on in-house innovation and personal reflection and growth. Path two is to try and sabotage the Jones' and focus on how they can be brought back below the rich guy's level as opposed to the rich guy trying to stay ahead.

Again, not saying one is better than the other. I believe that the US is in the midst of an identity crises right now. 70 years ago, they emerged as the world power. They grew and grew and grew, and much of the world seemed to revolve around them. Over the past 15-20 years, there has been a very clear decline in the country's stock. Some missteps for sure, but what country doesn't make mistakes? They will be fine for the next 5 generations, so long as they are happy with what they have.

Canada on the other hand....well....nobody really cares about Canada. We are about as unimpressive in global politics as they come!

[shlomo]

Guess it wasn't all that succint....lol

Does what I just wrote even make sense? In my head it did, but I don't often listen to the voices in my head, so I don't know....just rambling...