Is American Power Dwindling?

[antagon]

Let me try to speak more slowly for you:

Power
Is
What
Others
Preceive

aka, PIWOP, for the Bureaucratic Mindset that must Anachronise everything.

Obama, making apologies, DIMINISHES how others preceive America's power, and encourages them to fly airplanes into our sky-scrapers.

i guess you'll have to speak even more slowly samson. obama encourages people to fly into our sky scrapers? intriguing historical inversion. do tsunamies cause earthquakes, too?

answer slowly.

 

[Samson]

Let me try to speak more slowly for you:

Power
Is
What
Others
Preceive

aka, PIWOP, for the Bureaucratic Mindset that must Anachronise everything.

Obama, making apologies, DIMINISHES how others preceive America's power, and encourages them to fly airplanes into our sky-scrapers.

i guess you'll have to speak even more slowly samson. obama encourages people to fly into our sky scrapers? intriguing historical inversion. do tsunamies cause earthquakes, too?

answer slowly.

Sorry, your condition is beyond even my patience.

Learn how to sort buttons.

Employment at Handicapped Development Center

 

[antagon]

"Unlimited funds are the sinews of war." -Cicero

If that is so, our power depends on our strong economy. Obama has weakened that economy decisively by introducing layers of government control, more taxation, and more regulation. We simply will not be able to grow enough to finance a military that will be called on to act in a more global role.

I see this as possibly pre-meditated on Obama's part: He and his circle truly believe American military power is the problem, not the solution.

we'll fail to be the world's dominant military power because of obama?

at least you didn't mention apologies.

 

[The Rabbi]

"Unlimited funds are the sinews of war." -Cicero

If that is so, our power depends on our strong economy. Obama has weakened that economy decisively by introducing layers of government control, more taxation, and more regulation. We simply will not be able to grow enough to finance a military that will be called on to act in a more global role.

I see this as possibly pre-meditated on Obama's part: He and his circle truly believe American military power is the problem, not the solution.

we'll fail to be the world's dominant military power because of obama?

at least you didn't mention apologies.

You don't think the CinC has just a tiny bit of influence here?

 

[antagon]

precisely a tiny bit, rabbi. geopolitics from my perspective, wont rely on a president's apology record. i don't believe that our public finance and financial regulations are dependent on the president's ideology, either. instead, the idea that the actions of our government are or can be micro-managed by an individual is silly to me. in that paradigm, i understand that the president has great influence. he is also under great influence, and 'his' government is pressed to react to domestic and geopolitical circumstances. certainly in the stretch of time between 1920 and 2070, the influence of any given CinC is negligible.

ronald mcdonald does not make the menu at mickey d's.

 

[antagon]

Let me try to speak more slowly for you:

Power
Is
What
Others
Preceive

aka, PIWOP, for the Bureaucratic Mindset that must Anachronise everything.

Obama, making apologies, DIMINISHES how others preceive America's power, and encourages them to fly airplanes into our sky-scrapers.

i guess you'll have to speak even more slowly samson. obama encourages people to fly into our sky scrapers? intriguing historical inversion. do tsunamies cause earthquakes, too?

answer slowly.

Sorry, your condition is beyond even my patience.

Learn how to sort buttons.

Employment at Handicapped Development Center

classy, samson. i take it you've climbed out of the hole you dug with your PIWOP/apology bullshit?

 

[The Rabbi]

precisely a tiny bit, rabbi. geopolitics from my perspective, wont rely on a president's apology record. i don't believe that our public finance and financial regulations are dependent on the president's ideology, either. instead, the idea that the actions of our government are or can be micro-managed by an individual is silly to me. in that paradigm, i understand that the president has great influence. he is also under great influence, and 'his' government is pressed to react to domestic and geopolitical circumstances. certainly in the stretch of time between 1920 and 2070, the influence of any given CinC is negligible.

ronald mcdonald does not make the menu at mickey d's.

Oh, so the U.S. still would have gotten into WW2 if Roosevelt had lost? The U.S. would not have gotten deeper into Vietnam if Johnson had not been president? Great Society would have passed even if Johnson were not president?
Sorry. Doesn't work that way.

 

[VaYank5150]

I say no. Rather, I see the fall of the USSR as the infancy of US world domination, leaving a good 100 - 150 years of definitive top-dog status. Nevertheless, folks seem to be eager to prophecy our immanent decline. What is this based on, again?

No? DO all great nations borrow money from their enemies in order to be able to thump their military chests across the globe as we do?

 

[Yukon.]

The US is good at threatening such powerhouse countries like N. Korea and Iran because they may have nuclear weapons. However, the crazies in North Korea have nuclear weapons and the US is dead scared to act - America is, was, and always will be all talk and little action. China will rule the globe in every aspect within 10 years. America your day is done.

 

[antagon]

precisely a tiny bit, rabbi. geopolitics from my perspective, wont rely on a president's apology record. i don't believe that our public finance and financial regulations are dependent on the president's ideology, either. instead, the idea that the actions of our government are or can be micro-managed by an individual is silly to me. in that paradigm, i understand that the president has great influence. he is also under great influence, and 'his' government is pressed to react to domestic and geopolitical circumstances. certainly in the stretch of time between 1920 and 2070, the influence of any given CinC is negligible.

ronald mcdonald does not make the menu at mickey d's.

Oh, so the U.S. still would have gotten into WW2 if Roosevelt had lost? The U.S. would not have gotten deeper into Vietnam if Johnson had not been president? Great Society would have passed even if Johnson were not president?
Sorry. Doesn't work that way.

yes, it does.

we entered WWII after pearl harbor, part of our strategic continental defenses, was attacked. we escalated vietnam after tonkin and in an effort to curb the proliferation of commie states at the destruction of capitalist nations. we prevailed in the cold war because we surrounded and cut off the soviets. the great society was the last harrah of keynesian policy struggling with a country that had been at war for most of the prior 30 years, then stopped. the following decade oversaw the fall of the USSR, and set the ball rolling in a different direction socioeconomically.

i think that you could swap presidents in or out of the above and only affect changes to the nuance of the government's action and its consequences. i contend that we elect presidents who are mascots of our public sentiments, and that they and other leaders in government and the private sector rise to the occasions which we call pivotal, but ultimately which are carefully considered common-sense reactions to socioeconomic and geopolitical circumstances.

 

[antagon]

I say no. Rather, I see the fall of the USSR as the infancy of US world domination, leaving a good 100 - 150 years of definitive top-dog status. Nevertheless, folks seem to be eager to prophecy our immanent decline. What is this based on, again?

No? DO all great nations borrow money from their enemies in order to be able to thump their military chests across the globe as we do?

certainly not. this behavior is exclusive to the very best. america has been making friends of former enemies by getting in debt with them since the revolution, and i suggest that it is one of the keys to our success. because it has been so effective, i suggest that those looking to knock the policy flip it over and look at the positive proceeds it has afforded us, to include unequivocal world domination.

 

[antagon]

The US is good at threatening such powerhouse countries like N. Korea and Iran because they may have nuclear weapons. However, the crazies in North Korea have nuclear weapons and the US is dead scared to act - America is, was, and always will be all talk and little action. China will rule the globe in every aspect within 10 years. America your day is done.

china? every aspect? 10 years!!?

personally, i think barking is better than biting with nk and iran.

apart from that, what do you feel might catapult china from being entirely dependent on other economies to one as dominant as our own? what will afford them the international military and diplomatic position that the US enjoys now? essentially, what will happen to the US inside of ten years whereby all that will be forfeit, and to china of all spots? 20 years, even.

 

[editec]

I say no. Rather, I see the fall of the USSR as the infancy of US world domination, leaving a good 100 - 150 years of definitive top-dog status. Nevertheless, folks seem to be eager to prophecy our immanent decline. What is this based on, again?

Economics... if they're smart.

 

[topspin]

China will rule long before 10yrs, but thier per capita income will still be only slighly above slave wages.

 

[WillowTree]

I say no. Rather, I see the fall of the USSR as the infancy of US world domination, leaving a good 100 - 150 years of definitive top-dog status. Nevertheless, folks seem to be eager to prophecy our immanent decline. What is this based on, again?

I'm sure it is, I'm also sure it makes obie wan and the libruls cream in their drawers.

 

[Yukon.]

antagone,

The US is some 4 - 5 trillion in debt. China is financing virtually every aspect of American life. They own you. Soon Mao's Little Red Book will be mandatory reading in every American classroom.

 

[antagon]

dunno if that is quite what that means, yukon. have you considered that the chinese economy is run on dollars, and that by extension of that, we 'own' them?

this is what imperils your 10 year time frame in my opinion, but despite that, i'm not surprised to see so many jumping on the china bandwagon. china's growing pains will entail transitioning the yuan to its own legs. in this 10 years, theyll have to deal with the disparity of income in their country and their signature strife every time the east coast of the country enjoys concentrations of wealth. thats what led to mao's lil book in the first place. what about them having no capitalist solution to their aging population with two parents per child? how will a decade play that concern out?

have you considered china's raw materials trade deficit and the essence that we 'own' them on that front too? how 'bout their impending recession? will their currency situation stagflate their recovery? will it take them as long as japan to recover from their US investment addiction of the 80s? have you picked up on the deflationary implications of all of this at once? as china eases off the buck that will bring about some welcomed inflation over here. how will that effect the competitiveness of chinese goods compared to the present no-brainer which so many have based their ten-year outlook on?

china's not down for the count, but without even touching on what they've got to overcome in military and diplomatic terms, economically, the country is considerably overrated at this point; it is evidenced in the bullish opinions here on the 'street'.

for every billion we 'owe' china, they've printed 7 billion renminbi on the back of it. who's got the leverage? i could tell you chinese school kids are already reading books from american authors, if that's supposed to indicate something.

 

[antagon]

China will rule long before 10yrs, but thier per capita income will still be only slighly above slave wages.

blue is mutually exclusive to red in this day and age.

 

[loosecannon]

dunno if that is quite what that means, yukon. have you considered that the chinese economy is run on dollars, and that by extension of that, we 'own' them?

this is what imperils your 10 year time frame in my opinion, but despite that, i'm not surprised to see so many jumping on the china bandwagon. china's growing pains will entail transitioning the yuan to its own legs. in this 10 years, theyll have to deal with the disparity of income in their country and their signature strife every time the east coast of the country enjoys concentrations of wealth. thats what led to mao's lil book in the first place. what about them having no capitalist solution to their aging population with two parents per child? how will a decade play that concern out?

have you considered china's raw materials trade deficit and the essence that we 'own' them on that front too? how 'bout their impending recession? will their currency situation stagflate their recovery? will it take them as long as japan to recover from their US investment addiction of the 80s? have you picked up on the deflationary implications of all of this at once? as china eases off the buck that will bring about some welcomed inflation over here. how will that effect the competitiveness of chinese goods compared to the present no-brainer which so many have based their ten-year outlook on?

china's not down for the count, but without even touching on what they've got to overcome in military and diplomatic terms, economically, the country is considerably overrated at this point; it is evidenced in the bullish opinions here on the 'street'.

for every billion we 'owe' china, they've printed 7 billion renminbi on the back of it. who's got the leverage? i could tell you chinese school kids are already reading books from american authors, if that's supposed to indicate something.

good post, but is any of it real?

The ability of the US to run a double deficit without end is what all of our debt and economic power relies upon.

And that double deficit is the direct result of our world reserve currency status. A voluntary condition backed by NATO and of course the US military strength.

But that doesn't mean it can't all fail in a week.

China's strength is in taking over the command position in world manufacturing and owning the technologies of the future while we slowly forget how to make bolts.

Our military can't function without Chinese parts, and China can afford to arm themselves at about 8% the costs of us modernizing our military.

China's critical weakness is of course access to resources. I personally don't take their social instability too seriously.

They are probably the most unified, homogeneous nation state/culture ethnicity on earth. China is probably far more stable than the baby US.

But resources....how do you feed and supply 1.3 billion people? Esp in war? It does seem like an impasse is inevitable.

 

[Flopper]

Globalism is the scourge of mankind. It has turned so many into slaves. I can't recall a single Global trade deal signed in recent years that has benefited American Workers. All of our politicians in both parties have sold us out. I proudly proclaim that it's time for more Isolationism & Protectionism. The Globalists have made those terms dirty words. Why have they made those terms dirty words? Just look at the people who are always pushing Globalism/Interventionism. Those people don't care about Americans anymore. The time has come for a bit of that Isolationism & Protectionism. When Americans stop fighting for Americans you know something is wrong. Our politicians have stopped fighting for Americans a long time ago. I don't understand how so few understand this. I equate power with Globalism/Interventionism so i think less power might just be a good thing for this nation. That's how i feel anyway.

Globalization is here and here to stay. It has been devastating to American workers particular in manufacturing. The globalization of corporate American has been very profitable. It has opened markets throughout the world, Starbucks in China and Walmart in India, etc.. Business can now have easier access to cheap foreign labor. A boon for business. A disaster for American workers.

Unfortunately, I think there is little that can be done. It's just the way the world is moving.