| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - American and european evils or not?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


American and european evils or not?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: American and european evils or not?
    Posted: 22 Aug 2009 at 12:05
To what extend is resentment to the "west" justified (In WA and North Africa).
In the last century USA, Britain and France - and to some extend other powers had their empires or "spheres of influence", and of course the presense of soldiers etcetera especially in Iraq and Afghanistan can be seen as more of the same.But is that worse than "normal"? As far as I can see, at least for over three millenia some kind of  "imperial rule" or "Great kingdom" was the norm. What changed was the "name" of the ruler. So can the present situation in some ways be seen as a continuation of what "allways" was the case? Some of the names of ruling empires: Hittites and Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians, Macedonans/Greeks,Romans/Byzantines, Arabs,Mongolians, Ottomans, British, French, Americans, and a lot of others.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Aug 2009 at 17:46
Well fantasus it all touches upon whether one is discussing History or Contemporary Politics. In addition it is always easier, in terms of politics, to assign blame to what went before as the source of present ills than to accept responsibility for current chaos. What is interesting here is the overlap in the political jawing of the West itself (from Marxist determinism to environmental and social agiprop) and the opportunity it presents the political elites of places ranging from Nigeria to Burma--sorry Myanmar--for excusing their death grip on the political systems. However, in purely historical terms one can assess distinctions in the political philosophies of "expansion".
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Aug 2009 at 21:18
As Drgonzaga points out, expansion by itself is a continuous narrative curve in history. Take South Africa as an example -> For hundreds of years much of Northern Europe had seen periodic movements by 'barbarians'. With the fall of the Western Roman Empire, these new tribal groups migrated to significant new lands. What of the natives? Do we even care? The same happened in once Greek dominated Analtolia when tribes from the east came and dominated the peninsula in the space of a couple of years. Can anyone really make a claim nowadays that Anatolia should be returned to Greece?

Anyway, back to South Africa. (The greatest trait of AE is that it allows me to indulge in my infamous rambling binges) Whites came in the 1600s. How is their movement to a brand new land any different to the tribal migrations that have happened all over the world for centuries? It has been a simple fact of history that periodically one group of people are pushed aside as another vies for ascendancy. Arguing against the normatives of history with modern ethical standards and an overly ripe dose of hindsight is particularly userful if your a member of your local college generic left wing/Anarchist/Socialist organisation, but it really has little relevance anywhere else here in the real world.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Aug 2009 at 23:42
Parnell. In re: "How is their movement to a brand new land any different to the tribal migrations that have happened all over the world for centuries?"

Precisely, and they left at least one White tribe on the African continent, the Afrikaaners. Moreover, they spun off several mixed race peoples, who blended both African and Afrikaaners traditions. I caught the very last episode of a program on the NatGeo channel a few weeks back about the struggle of one group in South Africa who have brought suit to reclaim lands that are now owned by a diamond conglomerate. Back in the early 1970s, I attained a moderate capability in Afrikaans. Lo and behold, when the voice-over ceased, the people in the documentary, who all looked fairly "African", but not Zulu, were speaking Afrikaans. Morever, their church services, unless I'm mistaken, were modeled on the Nederduits Gereformede Kerke, (Dutch Reformed Church). I had learned about the Griquas (Adam Kok and all), but the term for this group was something else.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
SPQR View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 917
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SPQR Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Aug 2009 at 03:42
not much really more to say, looks like you guys already hit the nail on the head.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.

- Albert Einstein
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Aug 2009 at 09:07

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

To what extend is resentment to the "west" justified (In WA and North Africa).

In the last century USA, Britain and France - and to some extend other powers had their empires or "spheres of influence", and of course the presense of soldiers etcetera especially in Iraq and Afghanistan can be seen as more of the same.But is that worse than "normal"? As far as I can see, at least for over three millenia some kind of  "imperial rule" or "Great kingdom" was the norm. What changed was the "name" of the ruler. So can the present situation in some ways be seen as a continuation of what "allways" was the case? Some of the names of ruling empires: Hittites and Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians, Macedonans/Greeks,Romans/Byzantines, Arabs,Mongolians, Ottomans, British, French, Americans, and a lot of others.

 

Some difference is maybe that the western states of today must try to rationalize their behaviour with a somewhat new set of vocabularey. Today countries are not invaded in the name of the King or similar, today they are invaded because one has to fight terrorism, or one claims to perceive some form of threats from non existing BC weapons. The game of searching support in an international community and similar justifications are maybe also typical for todays world.

That USA and most of its allies today are democratic countries also demands an even greater propaganda effort than in old times to get enough mandate from ones own citizens. The agiprop of todays expansions must be somewhat more sofisticated, one cannot only refer to words as Glory, King, God, fatherland and such things (even if Bush now and then still used God in his propaganda).

 

 

 

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Parnell. In re: "How is their movement to a brand new land any different to the tribal migrations that have happened all over the world for centuries?"

Precisely, and they left at least one White tribe on the African continent, the Afrikaaners. Moreover, they spun off several mixed race peoples, who blended both African and Afrikaaners traditions. I caught the very last episode of a program on the NatGeo channel a few weeks back about the struggle of one group in South Africa who have brought suit to reclaim lands that are now owned by a diamond conglomerate. Back in the early 1970s, I attained a moderate capability in Afrikaans. Lo and behold, when the voice-over ceased, the people in the documentary, who all looked fairly "African", but not Zulu, were speaking Afrikaans. Morever, their church services, unless I'm mistaken, were modeled on the Nederduits Gereformede Kerke, (Dutch Reformed Church). I had learned about the Griquas (Adam Kok and all), but the term for this group was something else.

 

The difference between some of the old intertribal conflicts and later invasions is among other things a larger impact because of greater differences in technology and also larger cultural differencies. The new invaders just came from anoother continent where things were rather different.

That some groups have been affected culturally and religiously by outsiders  does not say that they are not entitled to legally defend land and property their people once uphold. On the contrary, it is rather irrelevant.

Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Aug 2009 at 12:56

The historical relationships between the western asian/northern african regions on the one side and europe (to some degree North america?) on the other side, is as I see it somewhat different to their relationships between other regions. One reason is of course theyu never were "new lands" relatively to the others, since they have allways been neighbours and allways had some relations, more or less friendly or hostile. Perhaps this relationsships started with first real humans, or at least far back in prehistory. There has been trade, migrations, exchange of ideas and wars from the beginning. Empires trying to expand both ways. That is certainly a difference from mnearly all other regions, at least from an european perspective, since europeans were left for themselves by the later (partly for obvious geographical reasons). And still today it is a complicated affair. For instance I can hardly see the same degree of "ideological" and religious complications in southern part of Africa relative to European countries today.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Aug 2009 at 14:21
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

That USA and most of its allies today are democratic countries also demands an even greater propaganda effort than in old times to get enough mandate from ones own citizens. The agiprop of todays expansions must be somewhat more sofisticated, one cannot only refer to words as Glory, King, God, fatherland and such things (even if Bush now and then still used God in his propaganda).
 
As far as I know, the only country that is still invading others, as a matter of routine is the United States.
Europe is just the chorus that is forced to sing the U.S. tune, and to support the Americans because otherwise they are left without deffense themselves. Since the Cold War, Europe nor Japan deffend themselves but relay in the Americans as guardians. Even in the Yugoslavia conflict no European did nothing but waited for the Americans to do the dirty job
So, Europe is irrelevant to the topic. The question is: when Americans are going to get bored of invading foreign countries in order to preserve the American guns industry.
The other question that amazes me is how the U.S. can live with an ever growing deficit. It wastes so much money in non useful things (carriers, for instance) and produce almost nothing worth of export, so year by year they are more indebt with the rest of the world. But they keep moving as if nothing happens.
Is there a limit from where the state would colapse? Or it is just that money doesn't make sense anymore, and that the U.S. could import more than export during centuries having no problem at all?
 
ConfusedConfused
 
 
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 23 Aug 2009 at 14:30
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Aug 2009 at 21:56
Come now Pinguin, "invasions" take place all of the time in contemporary settings even under the pretext of futbol! As for the United States, are you not somehow overlooking the international mind-set and these pesky little resolutions:
 
UN Security Council Resolution 1267
UN Security Council Resolution 678
 
 
 
as well as this litany of declarations:
 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Aug 2009 at 23:02
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Come now Pinguin, "invasions" take place all of the time in contemporary settings even under the pretext of futbol! As for the United States, are you not somehow overlooking the international mind-set and these pesky little resolutions:
 
UN Security Council Resolution 1267
UN Security Council Resolution 678
 
 
 
as well as this litany of declarations:
 


Hello Drgonzaga,

Though i agree with your point by bringing that up. I don't think anyone is going too remember the hundreds of UN resolutions against Iraq in it's thirteen year history! And those who do, have a stake in denying the actual history of Saddam's Iraq foreign policy.

Case in point, even though Iraq was mainly armed with Soviet arms (With a few western countries arming him as well) and equipment and practiced their tactics; Including the Soviets helping Saddam develop nuclear technology! They will only be able to see the US as the main benefactor of Saddam's Iraq prior to his invasion of Kuwait; And then it primary antagonist to Saddam's protagonist hero image, that is up to and even after the 2003 invasion. Would the term Cognitive Dissonance be applicable here?
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Aug 2009 at 23:20
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Come now Pinguin, "invasions" take place all of the time in contemporary settings even under the pretext of futbol! As for the United States, are you not somehow overlooking the international mind-set and these pesky little resolutions:
 
UN Security Council Resolution 1267
UN Security Council Resolution 678
... 

 
So what? The UN didn't bless the Bush's invasion of Iraq. It was a personal decision of that dumb president, motivated perhaps by lunatic advisors.
 
There was no reason to invaded Irak at that time. Even the invasions of Pakistan and Iran made a lot more sense that invading Irak. The first country was invaded simply because the U.S. has to take some revenge, so the American public felt better about S 11, and Irak was the selected target.
 
Perhaps the best the U.S. could have done after September 11 was to persecute Muslims in the U.S. but he didn't have the courage of doing so. Irak was just an excuse so people calm down.
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 23 Aug 2009 at 23:21
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 2009 at 00:02
Pinguino. As a point of fact, the U.S. has never invaded Pakistan. If you change that to Afghanistan, your sentence makes sense. As for Irak, yes, much of the animus of the invasion was "unfinished business" left over from the Gulf War. As for "persecuting Muslims", that wasn't the point. Though anti-Muslim felling was running high in some right wing circles, GWB did take pains to point out that he wasn't targeting Muslims, whether the man in the Casbah believed him or not. You can tell just how many Americans really loath and despise Muslims by checking out the middle name of the next president that the American electorate chose. That in spite of 9/11! Though the rabid right wing is still having a field day with it.

One point on 20th Century American and European "invasions" in general. First, in the great majority of cases, those nations have acted in concert with political factions inside the countries involved. Second, major efforts were made to win the support of the local people via infrastructure improvement in such things as potable water, sanitation, education, and road construction. Third, once in, the U.S. often began immediately looking for an exit strategy. Within Latin America, the glaring excpetion was the Dominican Republic in 1965. No one asked us to go into was really was an internal Dominican political problem, and once we were in, no one really wanted to be tainted by their association with us. To get out, we had to cobble together an "OAS" force to pass the flag to.  The same scenario would have played out in Grenada, except in that case the regime was considered so odius by its own people, that they overwhelmingly supported the U.S. invasion.

Panther: I'm having a hard time understanding how the U.S. was the main benefactor of "Saddam's Iraq". Yes, we were very happy to see them locked in a war with Iran, but "main" benefactor?


Edited by lirelou - 24 Aug 2009 at 00:10
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 2009 at 00:29
The U.S. has invaded Latin America when it has wished. That's out of the question.
No wonder the United States has always be seen in the region as "THE" enemy, or the major menace, if you preffer. All the love affair of Latin America with Nazi Germany first, and with the Soviet Union afterwards, could be seen simply as a reaction to the menace comming from the north.
 
Unlike the Middle Eastern or Muslim mentality, Latin Americans usually react in a defensive manner, and we preffer the policy of nice smiles and stabbs in the back. That's seen clearly in the Latin America strategy of being the less dependend on the U.S. as possible. In short, and in practise, if we could by from other sources rather than the U.S. we'll do.
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 2009 at 00:40
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


Panther: I'm having a hard time understanding how the U.S. was the main benefactor of "Saddam's Iraq". Yes, we were very happy to see them locked in a war with Iran, but "main" benefactor?


Hello lirelou,

I was pointing out the countless people who i have ran across on the web, who are otherwise nice and intelligent people, but can't get past the lies and propaganda that has been fed into them on a daily basis in regards to the US and the middle east region.
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 2009 at 05:55
Well it depends on certain instances involving the European and American relations in these regions. With the collapse of Ottoman empire the Allies held the Paris Peace Conference and via the Balfour Declaration had created a very volatile reaction in Syria . The French Mandate had divided Syria into 4 states .Alawite,Aleppa, Damascus,and  Lebanon.This was viewed unfair to some people such as the Christians in Lebanon who were uncomfortable sharing lands with Muslims.

The Sykes Picot Agreement was basically used out of general interest of both countries such as British and France . I think during the British Mandate of Palestine and  the French Mandates caused the birth of  Pan-Arabism.

Even during the Suez Canal Crisis  of 1955 as soon as President  Gamal Nasser strengthened his ties with USSR, Britain and France withdrew  funding for the redevelopment of the Canal,causing Nasser to alienate the Allies element within in the Suez Canal and Egypt itself.USSR threatened to intervene but never did.

People also don't understand that Israel is basically used as buffer zone that's why the US and Britain  have intentions on keeping stability in full security.
Quote
Anyway, back to South Africa. (The greatest trait of AE is that it allows me to indulge in my infamous rambling binges) Whites came in the 1600s. How is their movement to a brand new land any different to the tribal migrations that have happened all over the world for centuries? It has been a simple fact of history that periodically one group of people are pushed aside as another vies for ascendancy. Arguing against the normatives of history with modern ethical standards and an overly ripe dose of hindsight is particularly userful if your a member of your local college generic left wing/Anarchist/Socialist organisation, but it really has little relevance anywhere else here in the real world.


True they were migrations into the Africa but the fact is that these settlers kept their ties to the main European governments. Through Charters , excise taxes and tariiffs it was apparent that the white settlers did not intend to be isolate from the world. So they brought kept close ties with their homeland government.

Of course most peopek would say that South Africa had no governments but this is unture. Cecil Rhodes had signed many treaties with many tribal leaders such as the Shona,Nbedeble,and Xhosa tribes. They were empires such as the Mapungwa,Shona, and Rowzi who even the British consulted with.No matter how advance they were they did have order and civic duties and since the British settlers dealed with them they weren't  savages.The settlers would usually ask the tribal leaders to sign land deeds with the tribal chiefs(usually they didn't even know what tribal leaders didn't even know  what the deeds were). Hence,Bringing in new system of order to the one that existed will become a problem.

It is equivalent to the British being viewed as invaders to Ireland,who fought for Independence and recognition with Home Bill Act. I'm sure they are the unsatisfied poltical astute such as the IRA who are willing have even more autonomy.

The countries laws and judicial system should act in the interest  of those who are natives who would usually be the majority.Now even if they are minority ,the representation of the sovereign laws would be problematic . Even settlers j vie for independence because they want their opions and suggestions  heard.  So why should the natives. If you came to a new land you obviously chose a different environment and different setting so why bring that burden from with you.





Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


The other question that amazes me is how the U.S. can live with an ever growing deficit. It wastes so much money in non useful things (carriers, for instance) and produce almost nothing worth of export, so year by year they are more indebt with the rest of the world. But they keep moving as if nothing happens.


Exactly I heard that countries within the EU face defecits over 60 % of their GDP.Th united states faces a defecit within the range of 65% also.These countires are the model for economic prosperity,but it has very major obstacle. How can other countries follow this protypical model. Imagine if we had 10 other countries that followed the prototypical  model of the EU countries and the US,it would defintely deprive alot of the worlds economies from progression. The US and EU countries consume alot around the globe also,so this model is not viable for all countries unless you want neverending  bastions of rivalry in the global theatre.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/09/AR2009010902325.html

The most important is the coming surge in the federal debt. At the end of the last fiscal year, in September, the total public debt held by the American people (excluding debt issued to the Social Security Trust Fund or held by the Federal Reserve) stood at $5.8 trillion, or 41 percent of gross domestic product -- about what the debt-to-GDP ratio has averaged since 1956. But the

Congressional Budget Office projects deficits of $1.9 trillion over the next two years. Add almost $800 billion of stimulus spending, and U.S. debt soars to 60 percent of GDP by 2010 --

the highest level since the early 1950s, when the nation was working off its World War II and Korean War debts.

http://www.visualeconomics.com/gdp-vs-national-debt-by-country/

national-debt


Edited by AksumVanguard - 24 Aug 2009 at 19:09
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 2009 at 06:33
Well, Panther, I most certainly agree with your reference to cognative dissonance on this topic given the level of hypocrisy practiced not only by the mental vegetables of the Old Left but by the incessant agiprop of advocacy groups in search of a cause. I really do not want to enter a rehash of the repeated decade-long floating of jellyfish searching for a spine when it came to Iraq's antics vis a vis the 1991 cease-fire over Kuwait, but to listen to the ever rushing rhetoric advocating "intervention" or "condemnation" if a certain darling cause is being skewered does try the patience of Job. For example, presently there are some Euro dingalings (now that terminology is sure to provoke a flame war) hot on Sudan and its President Bashir over Darfur, however, how much do you want to bet that if the United States sent a military force to the area, they'd turn like rabid dogs against such an action? It's an old story, and unfortunately, Pinguin, has raised a perfect example of such by raising the spectre of Santo Domingo in 1965. Somehow, his "invasion" is quite a pastiche that totally ignores the total collapse of government in the Dominican Republic between 1963-1965 and the transformation of the city of Santo Domingo into a free-fire zone long before the landing of a single US Marine. Here are some historical records...
 
 
 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 2009 at 07:19
What a display of poor history as well as dismal economics...perhaps it is time to resurrect an old political phrase: voodoo economics in the face of historical amnesia.
 
First, the quicker points: There was no government of South Africa in 1890, and whatever the virtues or vices of Cecil Rhodes, neither the government of the Orange Free State nor the Transvaal were British colonies--in fact these political units had arisen as settler flight from British administration of the old Cape Colony established by the Dutch East India Company. The Union of South Africa did not come into existence as a political entity until 1910, and "Rhodesia" was never a part of it.
 
Now to all the moaning and groaning over "National Debt" and government "deficit spending". Such speculations are meaningless absent any reference to the capacity of an economy to raise private investment capital or its displacement by government paper. The classic example comes in any study of Great Britain during the critical decades of the Anglo-French wars of the 18th century. All of the doom predicated above for the US and European economies come nowhere near the 230% carried by the British government in 1820! Where the predicated collapse?
 
Here is an analysis:
 
 
By the way, by 1946 the US Debt stood at 130% of GNP...and given the nature of the modern economy GNP and not GDP is the valid measure of economic stability. Does one really need to understand that the availability of private capital has to be included in any equation?


Edited by drgonzaga - 24 Aug 2009 at 07:21
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 2009 at 21:38
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 
First, the quicker points: There was no government of South Africa in 1890, and whatever the virtues or vices of Cecil Rhodes, neither the government of the Orange Free State nor the Transvaal were British colonies--in fact these political units had arisen as settler flight from British administration of the old Cape Colony established by the Dutch East India Company.







European settlers in Africa have always chose to have ties with their homeland governments whether it be the British ,Portuguese Prazeros or Dutch Boers. The settlements made by the Boers were always attacked by Hottentots in the Cape and elsewhere in Southern Africa. They were never really successful in bringing forth a stable administration of government in the lands they relocated to . Of course they did business with natives but the natives already had their own system of society which were kingdoms such as the Shona and Mupungwa. Alot of these settlers were even called Trekboers for reasons they could not settle in and establish a solid framework for the arisen settlements.

Anyways the new Dutch colonies that such as Transvaal and Orange Free State were meaningless because they were all decimated in the  Anglo-Boers Wars.Besides they were British settlers in nearby lands,such Nysaland.
It is true that the Dutch were given seats in the new Union of South African Parliament but reguardless, it was still a newly formed British colony in which the Dutch Boers were repeatedly attempted to be angelicized and given a portion against the majority ruled by British settlers in which the UK declared dominion territory over.



The Dutch only numbered around 50,000 to 100,000 which will contsitute a  small minority in South Africa's,populace.

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


The Union of South Africa did not come into existence as a political entity until 1910, and "Rhodesia" was never a part of it.



Fully untrue .First and Foremost Cecil Rhodes was granted the Charter of BSAC (British South African Company) while he was also the Prime Minister for Capetown.When he was Prime Minister he met with trbal chieftains in regions such as the Limpopo and Zambezi rivers. They were Nbedele, Lobengula, and Shona. He so called negotiated terms with ill equipped translators on cession of tribal lands. There were even after incursions with the British.

The Dutch or British retaining rulership over the land is irrelevant. The fact is that there were already a societal governorship set up. And just as there seems to be gripe with immigration into European countries,it is not unusual for the Native tribes to find unfitting to their lands.

Now since you do agree with the government for the Union of South AFrica biddings ,why not agree

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


Now to all the moaning and groaning over "National Debt" and government "deficit spending". Such speculations are meaningless absent any reference to the capacity of an economy to raise private investment capital or its displacement by government paper.


 The classic example comes in any study of Great Britain during the critical decades of the Anglo-French wars of the 18th century. All of the doom predicated above for the US and European economies come nowhere near the 230% carried by the British government in 1820! Where the predicated collapse?


See this why you are always observing history in the great inepts for conclusion. You compare the economy of the 1860's to that of now. Really idealistic, to modify the economic factors of then and now.

There two things that come into play first and foremost Britain had just participated in a major war with Napoleonic France but it also had many new emerging markets being created.

This really going to be quick and breif.
Remember after that there was an "Industrial Revolution" happening globally. Whether it be John Deere's new agricultral designs or the new introduction of railroads,steamboat engines,and mining equipment European nations had an upper hand. The ones being rewarded by  Industrial Revolutions were European Nations.Also European Nations progressed of their colonial territories resources.

Now its different there is a new information age,and the rewards are not just isolated to Europe. There is a New Emerging Market in East Asia and there is also a rise in Latin America also.

 

 
 

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


By the way, by 1946 the US Debt stood at 130% of GNP...and given the nature of the modern economy GNP and not GDP is the valid measure of economic stability. Does one really need to understand that the availability of private capital has to be included in any equation?


There alot of factors as to why there wasn't a crash of 1946. The OPA Office Price Admistration had set limit on the price of goods to prevent inflation,also Americans had saved up investments such as war bonds,there were alot of americans who receieved pays from the GI bill which gave inemployemt benefits, There was also a new risng booming sector which called the "Movement Into Suburbia" this created a new housing market,which created a new market for housing materials.

There doesn't seem to be a new movement into suburbia only mass migration and relocating in the US mailnly to Southern States. There was also a new boom in car manufacturing , (the car registrations doubled  1944 to 1954) which doesn't seem to be happening as of right now.

Even with alot of factories moving to China and elsewhere it seems the US is being outsourced in the Auto Industry. There as also low cost of living back then in the US.And the developemt in Europe was due to the American Banks loans in which the US also benefitted from.

So the GNP is useless when there is decrease in sector markets. As for investing there has only been a rise in the market in the past 4 months in the US.This partially due to the Stimulus package.

But the fact remains is that alot of countrie shave bought the some portions US National  debt,so otherwise they actually are receiving help to stay propped up. The other factor is that the US faces great competition in East Asia and cannot win the bout.

By the way "Repo Men" and "Pawn Shop" owners seem to be doing good in the US market if you want to use that as your argument.


Edited by AksumVanguard - 25 Aug 2009 at 00:01
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 2009 at 22:15

Say what!?! Be it competence in English usage or the marshalling of the superficial, the above post is undecipherable both as to points and facts.

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 2009 at 22:28
Just wave the white flag,you have no comeback this time around.

Cry

But I'll make it quick and easy.

Dutch Boers and British settlers already encountered Sophisticated enough tribes in which they barged there way in on the existing kingdoms. Therefore as to the statement that was said British settlers or Boers are native to South Africa is both "politically incorrect" and "incorrect" .

Second point paraleling the British Debt of 1820 and the US GNP debt of 1946  with current state of Economic Recession of today, is totally foolish.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 2009 at 22:54
The Boers of the interior are as "native" as the Zulu if you wish to get technical and if you desire to describe their "imperialism" over the Nguni go right ahead. But I suspect the purpose here is to be simply argumentative. Apparently, only certain people have the "right" to migrate and then be labeled "indigenous"...
 
As for the dash of pepper passing off as economic salt, please...the "parallel" exists solely in your imagination as, apparently, you did not read the ucdavis analysis. By the way, neither individuals not governments invest in financial instruments to prop up anyone! In fact, it is this  US government paper that is propping up the East Asian economies, and served as the underlying reason as to why AIG was "bailed out" by the Feds. I did not see a rush in the international bond market to buy any Zimbabwe paper, did you? Can I interest you in some Czarist bonds?
 
In the future, if you can not properly respond to a cited source presented as proper analysis, please restrain your enthusiasm for the argumentative.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Aug 2009 at 00:52
Aksum, they are not "Boers". Boer simply means farmer. They call themselves "Afrikaaners", and their language "Afrikaans". They did not call themselves Hollanders, Frieslanders, Zeelanders, or even Netherlanders, so obviously they considered themselves something other than "Dutch" (or, more correctly, "nederlands). Even their language is considered far enough from Dutch to merit recognition as a separate though related language. 
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Aug 2009 at 02:16
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Well, Panther, I most certainly agree with your reference to cognative dissonance on this topic given the level of hypocrisy practiced not only by the mental vegetables of the Old Left but by the incessant agiprop of advocacy groups in search of a cause. I really do not want to enter a rehash of the repeated decade-long floating of jellyfish searching for a spine when it came to Iraq's antics vis a vis the 1991 cease-fire over Kuwait, but to listen to the ever rushing rhetoric advocating "intervention" or "condemnation" if a certain darling cause is being skewered does try the patience of Job.


Good point! I have ended up with more headaches in the last eight years due to the daily strain of constantly rolling my eyes.

Quote
 For example, presently there are some Euro dingalings (now that terminology is sure to provoke a flame war) hot on Sudan and its President Bashir over Darfur, however, how much do you want to bet that if the United States sent a military force to the area, they'd turn like rabid dogs against such an action? 
 


I can think of a ton of American movie stars who would do the very same thing! I am not a betting man, but if i was, that is one bet that i most certainly would not pass up!


Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Aug 2009 at 02:22
Hello Doc
 
I think you are exaggerating a bit. The most vocal opposition to intervention in the Balkans came from extreme right wingers both in europe and the US. Clinton was described as a war monger when he went into Kosovo by some republicans. Most leftests actually welcomed that intervention and would have welcomed an intervention in Sudan as well.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Aug 2009 at 03:16
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Hello Doc
 
I think you are exaggerating a bit. The most vocal opposition to intervention in the Balkans came from extreme right wingers both in europe and the US. Clinton was described as a war monger when he went into Kosovo by some republicans. Most leftests actually welcomed that intervention and would have welcomed an intervention in Sudan as well.
 
Al-Jassas


Exaggerating? As i recall the last six months since the last election, the most vocal opponents of the Irag-AfPak war have gone strangely quiet very fast, practically overnight! Right? crickets chirping....

It is what it is, pure political tactics for power! I'm not bitter by the way, just rolling my eyes some more. That's all!
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Aug 2009 at 04:29
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Hello Doc
 
I think you are exaggerating a bit. The most vocal opposition to intervention in the Balkans came from extreme right wingers both in europe and the US. Clinton was described as a war monger when he went into Kosovo by some republicans. Most leftests actually welcomed that intervention and would have welcomed an intervention in Sudan as well.
 
Al-Jassas
 
Well, Al Jassas, in view of the regular hyperbole from the usual suspects, perhaps I should be granted amnesty so as to bask on the sands of Bengazi for a little whileWink. Besides, if one looks upon the nature of conservative opposition to Slick Willy, the rhetoric over Yugoslavia was essentially the product of one irkful fact: Where the hell are those damn Europeans!?! Interestingly, in view of current predicaments, I would not be surprised if shortly President Obama will be uttering the identical resentments over Afghanistan and Iran.  
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Aug 2009 at 00:02
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

The Boers of the interior are as "native" as the Zulu if you wish to get technical and if you desire to describe their "imperialism" over the Nguni go right ahead. But I suspect the purpose here is to be simply argumentative. Apparently, only certain people have the "right" to migrate and then be labeled "indigenous"...


White French Hugenots have been in North America since the 1600s so have British settlers.Even up until this day they don't receive the name Native American,they are just called American. The Dutch and Britsh had discovered Australia in the 1600's also but still called the original inhabitants  Aboriginee. So even though the governments claimed parts of those territories,drafted up charters,and made settlements, even the Europeans never dared to say they were the "natives".
So to say the Boers are Native is incorrect. Whether or not they have a right to live in South Africa they are not "Native".

You probably must be reminded that the Afrikanners never made a proper  township, judicial panel, or society to govern the natives. The Dutch Settlers were always  faced  with  grievious bombardment by the Hottentots and other tribes. So they were not actually accepted into THE society of the land.

The incoming government set up by administration set up, entitled the Union of South Africa not to permit any blacks of any kind of seat in politics. So British did not allow the Black  people to have a voice in the politics, this was even close to marshal law and tyranny. That is forcing yourself on people and not giving away to a intergrated  culture at all.

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


Aksum, they are not "Boers". Boer simply means farmer. They call themselves "Afrikaaners", and their language "Afrikaans".


Boers was also a misnomer for Afrikaneer ,but the original name came from TrekBoers as they were called by the British in the Anglo-Boer Wars.


Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


They did not call themselves Hollanders, Frieslanders, Zeelanders, or even Netherlanders, so obviously they considered themselves something other than "Dutch" (or, more correctly, "nederlands). Even their language is considered far enough from Dutch to merit recognition as a separate though related language.


Of course they didn't! But they did have new settlements such as Niuewe Harleem which was named after Harlem in the Netherlands.

As for the tidbit with the different language. Most people the Dutch language a Germanic Language . And Germanic Languages come in at least 7 different dialects in Europe today. It is almost certain that this Germanic language  "Dutch" would evolve. Conceiving a different language from the original tongue spoken when in a new territory, does not constitute it to be a new culture indegenous to the land

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:




As for the dash of pepper passing off as economic salt, please...the "parallel" exists solely in your imagination as, apparently, you did not read the ucdavis analysis. By the way, neither individuals not governments invest in financial instruments to prop up anyone! In fact, it is this  US government paper that is propping up the East Asian economies, and served as the underlying reason as to why AIG was "bailed out" by the Feds. I did not see a rush in the international bond
market to buy any Zimbabwe paper, did you? Can I interest you in some Czarist bonds?

 
If thats the best rebuttal you have then maybe you should do your homework and find out what you are really talking about.I'm going to give you a few footnotes from your reference article which was absolutely unprofessional and non-complacent when in the observance of the current economic affairs.


We don't have to many investors buying in housing stock as of right since that market is so volatile.

http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/debt_deficits_&_crowding_out.pdf

  If the price of old homes rose significantly above the cost of supplying new ones then
 there would be nothing to stop existing owners from selling their housing stock to finance
  the construction of new houses, and hence reaping great profits. They would keep selling till
   the price of the old





As I said before the US doesn't  have enough confidence  and backing form  investors  for them to invest in any type of market. Why is that,for more than many reasons ,and one of them as I said is outsourcing and another reason is that the information age revolution is not exclusive to United States.


{{{{{{{THE GOVERNMENT USES PRIVATE INVESTORS TO PAY OFF FOR THEIR DEBT.}}}}}}}}}

 early eighteenth century, and a rise in the rates on government debt would seemingly
  imply a rise also in private rates.7 However the consol rate depended not just on
  private market rates but also on the level of investor confidence in the government’s
  ability to honor its obligations. There has been little systematic information for this





The situation in Britain at this time was complicated by the usury laws which limited the
 rate of return on mortgages and bonds to 5%, but did not limit the rates of return on government debt, on rent charges, or on real relative to GNP in the 1820s, when government debt averaged a value of 2.3 times GNP, output would have been depressed by up to 23% as a result of crowding out.



{{{{{{{WHY GOVERNMENT INVESTING EXCEEDING PRIVATE INVESTING WILL NOT CAUSE A RISE IN THE MARKET}}}}}}

3) Consider, for example, the housing market. Williamson assumes that the supply of capital to this market through private mortgages would dry up since that capital would be diverted to government debt. The reduced supply of housing would have to be rationed among housing demanders by rent increases.9 But housing prices would not increase proportionally with the rise in rents.



Yes,we are overlooking the nominal value over the market value however,with all the hope in annuities and hope of amortizing  interest rate is not in any good interest. Because in total summation the debt checks and balances are becoming insolvent let me give you a link below.

IF THE IMPORTS INCREASE ABOVE THE OWN NATIONAL GROSS (OWN NATIONS PRODUCT),THEN IF
IT OCCURS WHILE A NATIONAL DEBT WILL INCREASE.

This argument that government debt would have
 ittle impact on domestic capital markets in an integrated world capital market has
as a corollary the implication that in the years of the greatest increases in debt there
should be corresponding increases in capital imports.

These capital imports would show up  as a deficit in the merchandise balance of trade.



FACE VALUE (COULD MEAN THE TOTAL SUM AMOUNT TO BE PAID EVEN WHEN ITS PAID IN without  ANNUITIES (PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST)
MARKET VALUE- INCLUDES THE DIFFERENT INSTALLEMNTS PRINCIPAL AND PAYMENTS

THE 1820 ECONOMIST OVERLOOKED THAT DEBT WOULD OF BEEN PAID IN ANNUITIES AND DIFFERENT INTEREST RATES MISSING  THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF DEBT PAID


is that the market value used here includes a number of elements normally excluded
 in measuring the face value of the debt - the market value of the term annuities and
life annuities the government had contracted,

 

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


 I did not see a rush in the international bond
market to buy any Zimbabwe paper, did you? Can I interest you in some Czarist bonds?



I never said anything about investing in Zimbabwe currency, you definitely cannot keep up to speed with the dialogue of whats been said ,not even with your own words. This is not a surprise since you seem to bring non-sense to the topic as usual. I however find a underlying message with that remark you made about Zimbabwe currency.



 

Quote

*Special Edition*

THE UNITED STATES IS INSOLVENT


by Dr. Chris Martenson
The End of Money

December 17, 2006

InsolventPrepare to be shocked.

The US is insolvent. There is simply no way for our national bills to be paid under current levels of taxation and promised benefits. Our federal deficits alone now total more than 400% of GDP.

That is the conclusion of a recent Treasury/OMB report entitled Financial Report of the United States Government that was quietly slipped out on a Friday (12/15/06), deep in the holiday season, with little fanfare. Sometimes I wonder why the Treasury Department doesn’t just pay somebody to come in at 4:30 am Christmas morning to release the report. Additionally, I’ve yet to read a single account of this report in any of the major news media outlets but that is another matter.

But, hey, I understand. A report this bad requires all the muffling it can get.

In his accompanying statement to the report, David Walker, Comptroller of the US, warmed up his audience by stating that the GAO had found so many significant material deficiencies in the government’s accounting systems that the GAO was “unable to express an opinion” on the financial statements. Ha ha! He really knows how to play an audience!

In accounting parlance, that’s the same as telling your spouse “Our checkbook is such an out of control mess I can’t tell if we’re broke or rich!” The next time you have an unexplained rash of checking withdrawals from that fishing trip with your buddies, just tell her that you are “unable to express an opinion” and see how that flies. Let us know how it goes!

Then Walker went on to deliver the really bad news:

Despite improvement in both the fiscal year 2006 reported net operating cost and the cash-based budget deficit, the U.S. government’s total reported liabilities, net social insurance commitments, and other fiscal exposures continue to grow and now total approximately $50 trillion, representing approximately four times the Nation’s total output (GDP) in fiscal year 2006, up from about $20 trillion, or two times GDP in fiscal year 2000.

As this long-term fiscal imbalance continues to grow, the retirement of the “baby boom” generation is closer to becoming a reality with the first wave of boomers eligible for early retirement under Social Security in 2008.

Given these and other factors, it seems clear that the nation’s current fiscal path is unsustainable and that tough choices by the President and the Congress are necessary in order to address the nation’s large and growing long-term fiscal imbalance.

Wow! I know David Walker’s been vocal lately about his concern over our economic future but it seems almost impossible to ignore the implications of his statements above. From $20 trillion in fiscal exposures in 2000 to over $50 trillion in only six years? What shall we do for an encore…shoot for $100 trillion?

And how about the fact that boomers begin retiring in 2008…that always seemed to be waaaay out in the future. However, beginning January 1st we can start referring to 2008 as ‘next year’ instead of ‘some point in the future too distant to get concerned about now’. Our economic problems need to be classified as growing, imminent, and unsustainable.

And let me clarify something. The $53 trillion shortfall is expressed as a ‘net present value’. That means that in order to make the shortfall disappear we’d have to have that amount of cash in the bank – today - earning interest (the GAO uses 5.7% & 5.8% as the assumed long-term rate of return). I’ll say it again - $53 trillion, in the bank, today. Heck, I don’t even know how much a trillion is let alone fifty-three of ‘em.

And next year we’d have to put even more into this mythical interest bearing account simply because we didn’t collect any interest on money we didn’t put in the bank account this year. For the record, 5.7% on $53 trillion is a bit more than $3 trillion dollars so you can see how the math is working against us here. This means the deficit will swell by at least another $3 trillion plus whatever other shortfalls the government can rack up in the meantime. So call it another $4 trillion as an early guess for next year.

Given how studiously our nation is avoiding this topic both in the major media outlets and during our last election cycle, I sometimes feel as if I live in a small mountain town that has decided to ignore an avalanche that has already let loose above in favor of holding the annual kindergarten ski sale.

The Treasury department soft-pedaled the whole unsustainable gigantic deficit thingy in last year’s report but they have taken a quite different approach this year. From page 10 of the report:

The net social insurance responsibilities scheduled benefits in excess of estimated revenues) indicate that those programs are on an unsustainable fiscal path and difficult choices will be necessary in order to address their large and growing long-term fiscal imbalance.

Delay is costly and choices will be more difficult as the retirement of the ‘baby boom’ gets closer to becoming a reality with the first wave of boomers eligible for retirement under Social Security in 2008

I don’t know how that could be any clearer. The US Treasury department has issued a public report warning that we are on an unsustainable path and that we face difficult choices that will only become more costly the longer we delay. 

Perhaps the reason US bonds and the dollar have held up so well is that we are far from alone in our predicament. In a recent article detailing why the UK Pound Sterling may fall, we read this horrifying evidence:

Officially, [UK] public sector net debt stands at £486.7bn. That's equal to US$953.9bn and represents a little under 38% of annual GDP. Add the state's "off balance sheet" debt, however – including its pension promises to state-paid employees – and the total shoots nearly three times higher. Research by the Centre for Policy Studies in London says it would put UK government deficits at a staggering 103% of GDP.

If we perform the same calculations for the US, however, we find that the official debt stands at $8.507 trillion or 65% of (nominal) GDP but when we add in our “off balance sheet” items the national debt stands at $53 trillion or 403% of GDP.

Now that’s horrifying. Staggering. Whatever you wish to call it. More than four hundred percent of GDP(!). And that’s just at the federal level. We could easily make this story a bit more ominous by including state, municipal and corporate shortfalls. But let’s not do that.

Here’s what the federal shortfall means in the simplest terms.

  1. There is no way to ‘grow out of this problem’. What really jumps out is that the US financial position has deteriorated by over $22 trillion in only 4 years and $4.5 trillion in the last 12 months (see table below, from page 10 of the report). The problem did not ‘get better’ as a result of the excellent economic growth over the past 3 years but rather got worse and is apparently accelerating to the downside.

Any economic weakness will only exacerbate the problem. You should be aware that the budgetary assumptions of the US government are for greater than 5% nominal GDP growth through at least 2011. In other words, because no economic weakness is included in the deficit projections below, $53 trillion could be on the low side. Further, none of the long-term costs associated with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are factored in any of the numbers presented (thought to be upwards of $2 trillion more).

  1. The future will be defined by lowered standards of living. As Lawrence Kotlikoff pointed out in his paper titled “Is the US Bankrupt?” posted to the St. Louis Federal Reserve website, the insolvency of the US will minimally require some combination of lowered entitlement payouts and higher taxes. Both of those represent less money in the taxpayer’s pockets and, last time I checked, less money meant a lower standard of living.

  2. Every government facing this position has opted to “print its way out of trouble”. That’s an historical fact and our country shows no indications, unfortunately, of possessing the unique brand of political courage required to take a different route. In the simplest terms this means you & I will face a future of uncomfortably high inflation, possibly hyperinflation if the US dollar loses its reserve currency status somewhere along the way.

    Of course, it is impossible to print our way out of this particular pickle because printing money is inflationary and therefore a ‘hidden tax’ on everyone. Consider, what’s the difference between having half of your money directly taken (taxed) by the government and having half of its value disappear due to inflation? Nothing. Except that the former is political suicide while the second is conveniently never discussed by the US financial mainstream press (for some reason) and therefore goes undetected by a majority of people as the thoroughly predictable outcome of deficit spending. All printing can realistically accomplish is the preservation of some DC jobs and the decimation of the middle and lower classes.

In summary, I am wondering how long we can pretend this problem does not exist. How long can we continue to buy stocks and flip houses, forget to save, pile up debt, import Chinese made goods, and export debt? Are these useful activities to perform while there’s an economic avalanche bearing down upon us?

Unfortunately, I am not smart enough to know the answer. I only know that hoping a significant and mounting problem will go away is not a winning strategy.

I know that we, as a nation, owe it to ourselves to have the hard conversation about our financial future sooner rather than later. And I suspect that conversation will have to begin right here, between you and me because I cannot detect even the faintest glimmer that our current crop of leaders can distinguish between urgent and expedient.

What we need is a good, old-fashioned grassroots campaign.

In the meantime, I simply do not know of any way to fully protect oneself against the economic ravages resulting from poorly managed monetary and fiscal institutions. For what it’s worth, I am heavily invested in gold and silver and will remain that way until the aforementioned institutions choose to confront “what is” rather than “what’s expedient”. This could be a very long-term investment.

Are you shocked?

All the best.

Chris




Edited by AksumVanguard - 26 Aug 2009 at 22:12
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Aug 2009 at 04:44
Gee, an example of both trolling and improper posting. Perhaps you would like to contribute to the bandwith costs!?
 
If we are to speak of the "Hottentots" then by all means underscore their fate at the hands of the Bantu "invaders", and if you wish to analyze economic statistics within History do so cogently rather than in some blunderbuss approach that is entirely incomprehensible. And last of all, please do not post blogosphere articles without securing copyright permission even though Martenson is a notorious "seller" of seminars and hawker of buying "gold".
 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Aug 2009 at 08:45
Dr.Gonzo

It was your stupid article anyway,and it pertained  to the 1820 financial debacle,which really had no parallel to the current crisis of today .  I posted the article to show that with all the loans,T-Bills, and T-Bonds being used there is no way to help the US government in the state its in now. Not even with the stimulus package or the bailout.It will take a long time to recover.

Give it up,all your references are meaningless.

Now as for your statement about Bantu invaders,the Bantu's were also inter-grated with Hottentots and other Southern African tribes also, you can see this with the traces of linguistics with the Hottentots and Horners.

Now the next time I hand over your "rear hind" I will ask you if you like it "Crispy or Roasted "!



Edited by AksumVanguard - 26 Aug 2009 at 09:03
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Aug 2009 at 11:10
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 
If we are to speak of the "Hottentots" then by all means underscore their fate at the hands of the Bantu "invaders" 
 
The worst impact on the so called hottentots came from the European settlers who more or less exterminated them. Some of these Hottentots also ended up as slaves and a few were even sold to Europe where they were shown off as animals for the mob to ridicule. Also one or another ended up in some brothel as a kind of exotic sexual stimulation. And finally, after death some of them were carved up and placed in museums as showcases.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.