It's an honest question. For just a few minutes, please suspend disbelief and take a look-see at this very interesting article- http://www.energybulletin.net/node/23259
Written by a fellow who witnessed the collapse of the Soviet Union and is now comparing how things would go down in a similar situation in the U.S.
The basic premise is, since things were much worse to begin with when the Soviet Union collapsed, people were already accustomed to many of the hardships and therefore fared better. Whereas our modern society is built on support structurers that, when removed, will mean we'd have a much harder fall than our comrades over-seas.
Some of the factors that are listed as similarities between both sides are:
1) Declining oil production
2) Massively inflated military budgets
3) Unsustainable deficits and massive foreign debt
4) Balky, unresponsive, corrupt political system incapable of reform
5) Delusions of grandeur prevent honest discussion of problems
I like #'s 4 and 5 the most.
I also liked the fact that he recommends completely ignoring national politicians as in the end they really won't do anything to help and it'll be up to us on the local level to pull together!
Regardless of your opinion on this topic, please go read it now!
No amount of checks and balances will be able to save us if our economy crumbles due to inflation, the declining dollar, and the fact that we owe so much money to foreign nations. If our economy takes a major tumble, worse thant he great depression, then it is not at all far fetched to think of the entire government crumbling as well.
Except we dont really have to pay back those foreign nations. China one of those countries at one time nationalized our property in their nation. We could always just pay em back. Ya it would cost us... but not as much as collapsing would.
1. What does this have to do with collapsing? Japan has no oil production, did it collapse?
2. How are our miliary budgets, inflated? Last year, military spending was about 4% of our GDP (by contrast, when Carter was President, it was 4.7%).
3. National debt today is about the same as it was during the Eisenhower admin and less than it was during much of the clinton administration.
4. This is purely subjective. Define "reform". Aren't you in favor of redistributing wealth? Is that your idea of reform? Stealing money from one citizen to give to another. The USSR collapsed precisely because of that.
5. Purely subjective. I would say taking 10 seconds to look up your assertions would do you more good.
Comparing Japan to the U.S is a very poor example. Geographically they don't require a fraction of the amount of energy we do for transport, for starters. Also, they kinda did get involved in WW2 largely over their lack of access to oil... that turned out real well in their favor, didn't it?
Yes, this is true. Two things:
1) This 4.7 % of U.S GDP accounts for over 44.5 % of total world military spending (next biggest is China at only 7.3 % of world military spending.... so by far you are the biggest spender!)
2) The number calculated for U.S "GDP" also happens to include the value and sale of an obscene amount of goods made outside of the U.S. So all those cars made in Mexico and computer parts made in Indonesia all count as U.S GDP even though it is in reality massive debt. This is called cooking the books. This is the same kind of trickery used to calculate "core" inflation, in which food and energy prices were intentionally left out to make it appear that inflation was only 3-4 % when in reality it was more like 9%.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!! Ok. So looks like you're sitting pretty then right? Well, the world has changed a lot since the Eisenhower administration!
1) After WW 2 the U.S was the world's biggest lender. Now it is the world's biggest debtor.
2) After WW 2 the U.S was a net exporter of energy. Now you have to import nearly 65 % of your energy from foreign sources.
3) That's a nice chart you posted. Here's another one- http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/debt_gdp.png
with the root site here-
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
Where did you get that idea from??? Did you read the actual presentation I linked to? The fellow was arguing about how the government of the late soviet union was essentially useless due to corruption and being completely alienated from the reality on the ground. I argue that your current congress is in exactly that state (and it doesn't matter who's in control of it, dems or republicans ultimately serve the same special interest paymasters at the end of the day)
While your nation is facing issues of economic crises, depletion of major aquifers and core energy policy, politicians on both side of the isle pontificate about flag burning, gay marriage, abortion and whether or not 'to drill' or 'not to drill'. Nero fiddles while Rome burns. This is nothing new!
That's nice. They're not my assertions, by the way, which you would know if you read the presentation linked to. They're the assertions of the author, but for the record I do think they merit serious study. And delusions of grandeur do indeed prevent an honest discussion of problems. Delusions like saying "it could never happen here, we're the greatest country in the world!"
The U.S happens to be the greatest country in the world, at this particular moment in time. History is full of massive empires that were the greatest country in the world during their 15 minutes of fame. They had a good run, intimidated all the other empires and then ultimately fell apart for a variety of reasons. To state that the U.S will avoid the same fate is to say that human nature has somehow been altered irrevocably in your particular circumstance, which I think would be highly unlikely!
The USSR collapsed precisely because of that.
Draginol,
This reminds me of something I read in a German newspaper. The subject was why so many Germans emigrated, especially to America. It's a big problem in Germany as the economy runs out of skilled workers, especially in the IT field.
The author of the article argued that the erosion of the social security system in Germany makes people leave. The solution was, the author argued, bringing back the complete social security system of the earlier decades.
The emigrants, of course, happily left for countries with no social security system to speak of. So I'm not sure how it would occur to anybody that they would stay for a better one.
The point is that liberals are very focused. They have a strategy and they will apply it to solve the problem. And if the problem was caused by that strategy they will double their efforts.
You forgot one:
6) The rise in bleating hearts that support illegal immigration and housing bailouts, protest the troops, and generally despise and wish to usher in the demise of the country that has supported their freedoms and way of life in exchange for socialism or worse.
Yes, and in order for that to happen their empire collapsed, their economy was in ruins, two cities were completely flatenned and large parts of their capital city vaporized with saturation fire bombing. It was only with the oversight and assistance from the U.S that Japan was able to have the revival that they did. Which begs the question, would the U.S have to be militarily conquered as well in order for a similar outcome to occur?
Yes, and 60 years ago the U.S was able to domestically produce all the energy you needed AND build all your weapons and consumer goods inside your own borders. Today the only thing that remains is that you still produce your own weapons locally. That wonderful number called GDP today currently counts your debt to other countries as part of the GDP, a nice way of covering it up!
On the contrary, I'm not "slamming" anyone. I enjoy a good argument!
I would argue to the contrary. Seeing as the U.S has several hundred military installations on foreign soil (how many military bases do the British or Germans have in the continental U.S? Would they be welcomed if they were to ask for one?) now practices pre-emptive warfare (fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here) and has been involved in that wonderful game of coups and assasinations in nations around the world in order to place leaders in power who would play ball with the U.S, often-times getting rid of a democratically elected government.
This makes the U.S essentially an empire, just without the official title!
This is partially true, and at the same time a very dangerous argument. To state that "this time is different" as I said earlier, contradicts basic human nature. It doesn't and hasn't changed!
Ahh yes, the old "everything is the fault of those guys over there" argument. For anyone who has grown past kindergarten, you will see that this statement is childish and contributes nothing to the argument. Anyone can point a finger!
To be fair to Dresden its citizens did not vote hitler into power, and voted against him. Peronally I think we should have brought out the butchers knife in world war 2 much sooner, many G.I.'s died needlessly to save German and Japanese lives.
Sure, it hurts when when people of a liberal bias gets called for being part of the problem (you can tell they use phrases like "For anyone who has grown past kindergarten" to inflate their elitist egos). But isn't that the purpose of your article - to point your finger at your perceived issues with the US that could cause a collapse? Maybe you don't see it every night on the news up their in utopia, my original comment is valid (sorry you disagree and it hurt your sensabilities), plenty of US citizen hate their own country without outside help. So if your statement above isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. When you get Canada sorted out, by all means come fix the US. I would'nt dream of laying out a laundry list of their issues, as I would consider that rude and improper, especially with it being so terribly awful here in the US.
A collapse occurs because the system cannot adapt to a new situation. This new situation can occur from outside pressure or from inside pressure.
The US is too big to collapse because of pressure from the outside, much like for instance the EU.
And as for pressures from the inside, if there is one system capable of adapting to this, it is a democracy. As far as I'm concerned it is what makes it superior to any other type of government, the ability to get rid of any truly incompetent leadership.
So, although anything is possible, the likelyhood of an US collapse within our lifetime is neglectible. Its power will probably slide over time (and some will argue it is already sliding), but a collapse? Not in the foreseeable future.
That was the Reichstag, not the electorate.
But the electorate voted for those MPs.
The pietistic Obama shall head off the Judgment Day and lead us children and Wall Street out of the wilderness--with the help of the resurrection of the New Deal.
It is a little overextended on the global stage, but yeah, I'd agree it's not going to collapse for a while. The liberal/conservative divide you have going isn't geographically based, so although the intensity of hatred displayed on JU may be widespread, without a geographical split between the two sides it's not going to threaten the union.
It's certainly not going to collapse for economic reasons. Regime change is too easily facilitated through the electoral process. When a president or congress is dumb enough to postpone elections, then nastiness might happen, but I don't think that's likely, nor that it would result in a widescale collapse rather than just a tweak of the country's chiefs.
You're an intelligent man, surely you don't fall for the guff that people elect MPs because they represent every viewpoint a voter possesses. Usually it's just a couple of issues that decide an election; presumably the overthrow of government by Hitler was not a big part of the campaign trail for those who did win big at the polls (correct me if I'm wrong).
Usually it's just a couple of issues that decide an election; presumably the overthrow of government by Hitler was not a big part of the campaign trail for those who did win big at the polls (correct me if I'm wrong).
Well, I asn't alive then, obviously, but I do know that the social democrats and communists were the only ones who campaigned positively against Hitler.
If the Germans had made Hitler an issue and had wanted to avoid him they could have voted for the social democrats.
They presumably thought that other issues were more important. Either way, it's not fair to say that only one third of Germans supported Hitler given that another third or so didn't care enough to oppose him.
Maybe, but maybe not. There's a strong case to suggest far right-wing candidate Pauline Hanson wouldn't have been so popular in Australia if every other political party hadn't turned on her and made her a martyr candidate. it's possible the strategists in the big parties simply underestimated what Hitler was capable of achieving with a little indifference.
Totally. Problem is, we'll never really know - propaganda was really effective those days, especially considering the inconsistent education and focus on rote (and therefore indoctrinated) learning. It makes it impossible to apply any of our modern assumptions to the situation (and yes, I realise that conveniently disqualifies my previous comparison, but let's just ignore that).
It would be fascinating to read some translations of internal party documents regarding the Nazis if they still exist. I have a feeling they don't though.
Anyway, I think we can safely assume that after people started disappearing nation-wide any German who wanted to know, knew. That's where the 'you can blame the German people safely' line comes in for me.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
