PeakTrader.com

[administrator]

VangelV said...

The US can cut 80% in military spending and still spend more than any other country. Why should it spend as much as it does has never been adequately explained.

------

PeakTrader said...

VangelV, the U.S. has a world empire to defend.

Countries pay tribute by making sure the U.S. can consume more than produce, in the long-run, to insure their defense.

They really don't have a choice anyway, because the U.S. is the world's only superpower. Nonetheless, that's the way the "world order" has developed.

When the Roman Empire fell, the world had a thousand years of economic stagnation, called the Dark Ages.

Also, I may add, the Roman and British empires lasted for hundreds of years. The American empire began after WWII and will likely last hundreds of years.

This is only a "soft-patch." The Romans and British had many of them. The E.U. and China have more economic problems than people realize and they're much worse than the U.S.

And the Roman Empire lasted for hundreds of years even after Nero.

----------

VangelV said...

"VangelV, the U.S. has a world empire to defend."

Empires are too expensive for taxpayers. That is why they keep going broke.

"Countries pay tribute by making sure the U.S. can consume more than produce, in the long-run, to insure their defense."

Really? You mean that China is paying the US to defend it? It seems to me that its businesses are taking advantage of events to accumulate productive capital that will make Chinese workers and investors much better off than they could have without American stupidity. Had the US kept to a small government and small army policy it would not have any meaningful competitor in most of the industries that it excels in.

"They really don't have a choice anyway, because the U.S. is the world's only superpower. Nonetheless, that's the way the "world order" has developed."

A superpower? You are borrowing money from China and Brazil so that you can keep your government afloat. That is not the definition of a real superpower. I suggest that you confuse illusion with reality.

"When the Roman Empire fell, the world had a thousand years of economic stagnation, called the Dark Ages."

First, a cooling planet tends to do a lot of damage to agricultural societies. Second, when the French, Ottoman, Russian, and British empires fell the world just moved on.

"Also, I may add, the Roman and British empires lasted for hundreds of years. The American empire began after WWII and will likely last hundreds of years."

The British Empire peaked just before it lost the Boer War. The American Empire peaked before it lost in Vietnam and declared bankruptcy. Forty years have passed since then and the fiscal and monetary conditions are driving what is left of the empire towards the abyss.

"This is only a "soft-patch." The Romans and British had many of them. The E.U. and China have more economic problems than people realize and they're much worse than the U.S."

The US is broke. It borrows from the EU and China to keep its government operating, not exactly a sign of strength. And nobody claims that the Chinese people are better off than their American counterparts today. Like Europe, China is still poorer on a per capita basis in the US. But economically it is a lot freer, even with the meddling idiots in Beijing getting in the way here and there. This is why the Chinese standard of living has gone up so rapidly and why Chinese citizens in cities like Shanghai, Qingdao or Dalian have a better standard of living than Americans living in Detroit, New Orleans, Atlanta, Buffalo, or Los Angeles.

"And the Roman Empire lasted for hundreds of years even after Nero."

It was in decay with few viable competitors. Life after Nero was one of hardship, uncertainty, and high taxation, not exactly great for the average person living in the Empire.

---------

PeakTrader said...

VangelV, your response to my statement is illogical.

The American empire is not expensive (to America) when other countries pay for much of it, including China, which has to be part of the empire to improve its economy.

Face it, the U.S. is the world's economic and military powerhouse - the world's only superpower.

---------

VangelV said...

"The American empire is not expensive (to America) when other countries pay for much of it, including China, which has to be part of the empire to improve its economy."

If you want to see an example of illogical read your own posting. China is not paying for your military. Chinese businesses are busy accumulating capital over the past 30 years even as your own have been shedding capital for the better part of half a century. The government has taken that money and used it to finance all kinds of infrastructure spending. When the USD is toast China will still have the factories and the infrastructure, and the means to trade what it makes for the products that it needs. But with their currency's reserve status gone and purchasing power eroded what will Americans use to purchase all of the things they need?

If you want wealth you need investable savings. If you want power you need capital accumulation. The US has neither savings nor capital accumulation.

"Face it, the U.S. is the world's economic and military powerhouse - the world's only superpower."

Superpowers don't borrow from developing world countries.

---------

PeakTrader said...

VangelV, obviously, the world's only superpower borrows from poor countries, and you continue to make false assumptions:

U.S. has plundered world wealth with dollar: China paper
Oct 24, 2008

Plunder: to rob of goods or valuables by open force, as in war; despoil, or fleece; to take wrongfully, as by pillage, robbery, or fraud; loot.

BEIJING (Reuters) - The United States has plundered global wealth by exploiting the dollar's dominance, and the world urgently needs other currencies to take its place, a leading Chinese state newspaper said.

"The grim reality has led people, amidst the panic, to realize that the United States has used the U.S. dollar's hegemony to plunder the world's wealth," said the commentator, Shi Jianxun, a professor at Shanghai's Tongji University.

Shi, who has before been strident in his criticism of the U.S., said other countries had lost vast amounts of wealth because of the financial crisis, while Washington's sole concern had been protecting its own interests.

Shi suggested that all trade between Europe and Asia should be settled in euros, pounds, yen and yuan, though he did not explain how the Chinese currency could play such a role since it is not convertible on the capital account.

---------

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/10/24/us-china-dollar-criticism-idUSTRE49N1XX20081024

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28997633&postID=1333414555087306176