Just to place things in to perspective, the last fifty years of Human life has been the most comfortable in history. At no other point would people of been so willing to bite the hand that feeds them - a testiment in itself of how luxurious and priviliged our life and times have been. America, love it or hate it, is to thank for those times.
No, I don't I think it will collapse that soon. China and other emerging powers still have reasons to allow America and the West to continue as is - export markets and technology to name but two.
China has even offered Greece bailout money on better terms than Europe, and has given Belarus substantial credit. The objective being to achieve the dual purpose of maintaining Western economics in their own interest, and to bride political support from Western nations for pro-China policies - vis-a-vis, to crush the growing movement in Europe for greater import controls and home production, both of which would be of great detriment to the Chinese export market.
I believe that China and the other powers will genuinely and completely overtake the West towards the end of this decade. Consequently, the value of all Western currencies will drop through the floor and our import and financial markets will crash, and as we are not producer-nations our export markets will never make up for what is lost. From here, it's plausible to believe that the 20's of this century will be much like the 30's of the last.
Japan & Germany have massive debts, but they are redeemed by the quality of their GDP. The danger of debt is relative to the viability of the economic system accruing said debt. In the same way that the danger of taking on a mortgage is relative to the individual's capacity and security in earning their wage.
Debt to the economy can be as oil is to the engine. If debt puts you ahead - productively - of other nations in the market then the power position you gain outweights the cost of the debt.
But I agree that as far as Western economies are concerned, the defecit is as negative a thing as you describe. We use the money we borrow to maintain an invalid economic system for the benefit of the few.
Far sounder economies with large defecits do exist.
Judging GDP in any light is very deceptive. If I go out and commit a crime tomorrow that would raise the GDP, lots of things of no use raise the GDP.
How your GDP reaches the number it does, that is the measure of whether an economy is sound or not. The quality - and not size - of the GDP is what is important.
Take the infrastructure, know-how and technology of North West Europe(minus Ireland obviously)and mix it with the work ethic that can only be found in Eastern Europe. Have a situation where we in the North West trade finished goods and certain technologies in exchange for the raw materials of the East.
Clamp down on the free movement of labour within Europe to protect conditions and jobs in the North West, and to prevent the "brain-drain" of Eastern Europe that always occurs in nations suffering high levels of emigration.
You're still leading to a situation where you have a minority that has money it'll never spend, and a majority that has no money to spend. This will be an economic disaster unless a productive way of distributing wealth is to be found.
The door can swing both ways - you could default on your loans - and I suppose if you're a radical this is what you want to happen in order to trigger another great depression and force a change. Speaking completely selfishly it wouldn't touch me. If 80% of the workforce gets sacked tomorrow I won't be one of them so it's not in my self-interest that America pays up, thankfully though for everybody else, the decision isn't up to me.
As for purchasing power, an increase following from a major decrease in terms of a trend is still stagnation - and that's being kind.
I'll try to be less vague in future, Leigh. As for you swearing at me, that's fine, I like fiery Women.
That's right. Marriage must be hard and if something's hard to do then it's not worth doing. So why even try to be a better partner when you can have as many divorces as you like, problem solved.
That last made me laugh out loud. I think you know libertarians about as well as you know Ayn Rand (very, very passing familiarity). Libertarians, by and large, are about the least materialistic-oriented people you would ever meet. God, money-grubbing libertarians are about as rare as...well, female libertarians. You'd be vastly more likely, when encountering a libertarian, to hear a long philosophic analysis or discussion of some book on economics than find some rogue capitalist. And when you enter their usually very modest homes, you will probably find a large library of books, not a big fancy car or expensive stereo system.
Libertarians by and large are about ideas. Sure, in principle they support free markets, but are not likely at all to be hard-driven capitalists. There are some notable exceptions, but after having spent decades with these dudes, I think I can attest to the above with some degree of accuracy.quote]
You sound like a Left-Libertarian?
I'll counter your point on materialism by stating the fact that the impoverished are hardly ever Libertarian. This is because individualism is an inherent luxury - when you're poor you need the people around you more than ever, like our ancestors needed the tribe just to survive the daily struggle. If state welfare collapses tomorrow then who starves first, rich or poor?
Throughout history only the priviliged have wanted little or no government.
But then, the priviliged have often not considered themselves as such.
You don't sing the praises of the man you're copying from. it's basic common sense.
However there are differences. Nietzsche says material success creates intrinsic problems of its own(such as decadence), wealth and greed is not problem-free in Neitzsche's view. Whereas Rand paints a utopia based on changing Human nature and placing greed as a virtue - everyone pursuing self-interest solves the World's problems, apparently. In this vague sense of utopia, and in other respects, Rand is much like a Marxism for the priviliged.
She doesn't claim objective truths on subjective matters - she's not a Priest - quite the opposite in fact. What is correct in her opinion - and my own - is taking the most practical elements of each, or any, subjective view(being rational).
The 'truth' and being objective is what is most valid in material terms, according to Rand. Thus, Rand would be a great believer in the phrase "the ends justifies the means" as long as this doesn't violate the next person's right to exercise the same on behalf of their own ego.
I've read Altas Shrugged and many of her interviews, but i've also read The Gay Science by Nietzsche amongst others. I have little prejudice against Rand for her position and ethics - I couldn't like Nietzsche if that were so - i'm just aware she is vastly outdone by greater minds, and also aware that she's a plagiariser.
I mean, if you need to be a self-obsessed money-grubber like most Libertarian-leaning folk, at least be an intelligent self-obsessed money-grubber and pick up a decent book.
TrueBlue1986 Forum Posts (1,322)
RE: The $ and the American economy
Just to place things in to perspective, the last fifty years of Human life has been the most comfortable in history. At no other point would people of been so willing to bite the hand that feeds them - a testiment in itself of how luxurious and priviliged our life and times have been. America, love it or hate it, is to thank for those times.