Thread: Is the US on the decline?

Originally Posted by brokensickle

The fact is you reside in a country you hate...What does it matter proving how many people died under Stalin? You don't live in a country that is communist. How many facts do I need to make the point that history proves that people suffer under the form of government you cherish, (communism), and flourish in the form of government I and many other free people cherish, (democratic republic).

Facts must be fabricated to prove your point. My point of the dearness of freedom live everyday in the hearts and minds of the free. My freedom proves my point in the here and now. Your bondage is to a nebulous communistic dream that has never lived out in anything but lack and suffering. Yet you try to bring this terrible yoke (communism) for others to bear like you, expecting that it will yield an other result. This, Feanor, smacks of insanity.

But the facts bear me out and not the other way round.

Excellent post, brokensickle.

Originally Posted by Feanor

It's a corrupt oligarchy that facades as a representative republic. It is not a democracy. No nation on earth has ever achieved communism.

The vast majority of the American people would disagree with you... and given how difficult it is for our government to keep even things that are important to our national security secret, I doubt that the American people are "mystified."

And if no nation has ever achieved "true" communism from all the nations that have tried, wouldn't it be fair to say that you are pursuing a pipe dream? How about trying for a government that humans can actually achieve?

They provide statistics based on opened archives of the NKVD. I'm sorry but I do most (almost all) of my reading in Russian.

Ok, so I've seen summaries of those same statistics... see my response above.

What numbers do they provide and where do their numbers come from.... once again I'm not trying to be an ******* but if you really are interested in getting to the bottom of this we need to start putting concrete things on the table. I'll do my best to translate some of the articles I linked to.



What numbers do they provide?

According to Ross, the total number of Soviets dying pre-mature deaths from the famines, purges, gulags and forced relocations was approximately 20 million (note that this was all pre-war... it doesn't account for the post-war or during war executions and deaths that the Soviet government was responsible for, and it also doesn't account for postwar purges and recriminations against groups who supported, or were thought to support the Nazis...). Roberts (with the benefit of demographic data from glasnost and better computer models) puts the pre-war figure more around 17 million (direct and indirect deaths). During the war however certain minorities (Tatars, Volga-Germans, ect) suffered extremely heavily during their forced relocations, adding another 2 million or so to the death toll. He estimates that although roughly 16-17 million Soviets died in the war because of the Germans, approximately 25 million Soviets died premature deaths between the years 1941-1945 (that is accounting for the demographic collapse that occurred during the war in the projections).

These are two of the most conservative estimates by credible sources that I have found, but many others put the toll well above 20 million. Anything higher than 30 million I discount, because the demographic curves I have seen can't accommodate that many deaths in addition to what was lost in WWII.

No, it collapsed because it was producing a ridiculous number of weapons.

For the most part we were outspending the Soviets during the cold war ( and on the few occasions where the Soviets were outspending us, they weren't doing it by much... I can easily post numbers from the chart I am looking at right now from 1948-1970, but I don't really want to go to the trouble of all that typing unless you really want to see the statistics.

Originally Posted by gunnut

And if consumers are not there to spend money on your products, all you have are just paper weights -- worthless dust colelctors. Corporates exist to satisfy consumer demands. Without people to spend money, there's no point to make anything. It's a symbiotic relationship. People vote with their wallets. Corporates respond by making more, better, and cheaper.

National production is not measured by 'salaries', it is measured by production. Wealth of a nation is measured by the nation's output without which no salaries can be warranted. A nation can have a huge population by less production, that country will be poor. On the other hand a nation can have a small population but a big production output, that nation will be rich.

What im trying to say to you is when we speak in economic terms national output or creation of wealth is primarily measured in the terms of GDP(salaries are not an additional output because they come from gross output). Moreover in today's globalised market local consumers can have a low consumer buying power (basically poor) but have a strong economy. China has a poor local consumer buying power but it has a huge output hence its prosperity. Again, it is corporate production which matters most, once that is established everything else falls into place.

Originally Posted by gunnut

Absolution not. Government at most should provide arbitration for consumers should they be damaged by poor products/services.

Couldn't have explained it better than lawrmonger, post number 79.

Originally Posted by gunnut

That is the most dangerous economy of all, a command economy. If it's needed, people will pay for it. If something is unneeded, people won't buy it. It's as simple as that. Government has no place to tell people what to buy or what not to buy.

Look at my favorite example, the GM EV1. There was a lot of fanfare and government incentives for people to buy the electric car. A few people tried it. GM lost a lot of money and pulled the plug on the project. The market reacted to a product that is not needed. The corporation got the message and cancelled it. Government tried its best and still failed. Do you want to push it more? At what cost?

Your answer lies withing your reply, 'a product that is not needed'. I said "stimulate a NEEDED sector". An example is the farming sector in the US which is subsidised to protect the industry and local producers which provide employment, reduce need for imports and reduce US's dependancy on outsiders. Another example of stimulation is in the UK the government gave grants to Nissan to open a plant in NE England and resulted in the creation of massive employment and increased exports. An example of suppression is in the UK the targeted taxing on products such as cigarettes, alcohol and high poluting vehicles which have a detrimental effect on public health(except for vehicles which are for environmental reasons) and is burdening the health system.

Originally Posted by gunnut

Consumers should make that choice. Not government. Starbucks is anti-gun. I do not spend my own money on Starbucks anything. You can supoprt it if you want. It is not the government's place to advise us on social issues.

If you like government to advise on social issues, how about banning violent video games or outlaw abortion? There will be so many cries of "Nazism" it won't be funny. Isn't it funny how people who want government to involve in social issues only want government to promote their cause? If it's agianst their cause, they scream bloody murder!

Im talking about real social issues not video games. What about the earlderly who fought in WWII who can not afford to work and support themselves, do you think the corporate or the consumer would 'make the choice' for them? What about the disabled, blind retarded etc? Do you think the corporate would think of those? What about bus routes to areas which are not very profitable. Should those be left to carts and bicycles?

Originally Posted by gunnut

Do you know why we import more than we export? Cost of doing business. It's more expensive to produce those products here, thanks to government intervention. Environmental regulations, union labor, corporate taxes, and a host of other factors that make production here expensive. All due to government intervention. And they came from your favorite argument to have government intervention -- social issues.

The cost of doing business is that high so that you do not have lead poison in your children's toys, so that you do not have banned substances in your toothpaste, so that you do not get food poisoning in your marine diet, do any of the above ring any bells? Without government intervention all the above would be just free for all.

Originally Posted by Shek

Here are some pretty obvious consequences:

1. China decides to sell "HUGE" amounts of dollars. Lots of supply, price of a dollar goes down. Result: China loses lots of money.

2. Price of dollar goes down, so American exports look attractive to the rest of the world, Chinese imports look expensive to Americans. Result: China loses a prime market for Chinese goods, so China loses lots of money, and the US economy shifts sees a change in trading patterns, with fewer imports but more exports.

But the thing is probably the danger wont come from China. It doesn't have to subotage to hurt the US. If the US doesnt stop the rot, naturally, economics will force investors to shy from the US which in due course will result in a calamity. There is anxiety already and major international financial power houses are beginning to take steps. They are still giving the US the benefit of doubt but if the US is not seen to be on top of the situation, the business world will buckle and even if China has no ill intentions towards the US, will end up having to dump the dollar to mitigate its losses.

Originally Posted by gunnut

If it happens, dollar value obviously plunges. Yuan will rise in value as it was pegged in part to the dollar and in part to the euro which will rise in value against the dollar...

Not really. The yuan is by and large liberated now. It uses a family of busket currencies and hence as such is not affected by any one particular currency. It would suffer the same ripple effect suffered by all world currencies, generally.

Originally Posted by Feanor

I've been saying that forever. Well maybe not so much on here. Capitalism is an economic system based on greed. When you base your entire society on greed what do you get? That's right. Greed.

Capitalism is based on greed, but Socialism, though good in theory, is extremely difficult to put successfully into practice, for various economic reasons. So, the only way is to have a market economy, but one where there are check and balances to ensure that there are no extremes of wealth and poverty. This is the approach that has been taken in a number of wealthy European countries such as Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands.

Originally Posted by gunnut

Not true. The moral decline, if there is one, and depending on the definition of "moral", started or accelerated in the 1960s. What happened in the 1960s? Let's see, total control of the US government by the democrats; hippie movement; socialism rears its ugly head.

Total free capitalism was the order of the day until early 20th century before government got involved. Are you saying our morals were better now or before?

All humans are greedy. You can't eliminate that. There will be greed in a greed based economic system and there will be greed in a commune based economic system. Might as well use greed to motivate people to work harder, and once that greed is largely satisfied, they will become more charitable. If you have a commune, then no one wants to work or people will merely do enough to get by. Greed is not satisfied and people couldn't give a flying rats ass about some other schmuck who might be in need.

In a way, it's a paradox that people in a capitalist system are more charitable than people in a socialist system. Because along with greed, guilt is also natural to being human. After our basic needs are satisfied, our guilt shows up to tell us to help our fellow human beings. No laws are needed. In fact, laws typically have the opposite effect. People will then have an excuse to NOT help others because they can say the system is taking care of those in need so I don't have to.

I don't agree with Communism, but neither do I agree with a totally unfettered capitalist system, which is what seems to be favoured in the USA. The former is unworkable and goes against the laws of economics, while the latter makes the economy a jungle.

As for morals, suffice to say that I believe in traditional Christian morality. The rest is obvious.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

The only reason people say the US is in moral decline is because they live here and now.

If you all had lived back in the 1940's and 50's (which tends to be the "good old days" to most people) you would have had your own set of problems to complain and worry about... and would probably be looking back to a mythical earlier time when things were better.

Maybe. But life was less materialistic in the 1950s, and family ties were stronger. Kids were part of the family then, they ate at the table and were in bed at a set time every evening. Mothers stayed home and fathers were home every evening at 6.30pm or thereabouts. Now, it's all a free-for-all. The MTV generation has grown up to be selfish, self-seeking and pleasure seeking. Half of all marriages ened in divorce and teenage girls commonly get themselves pregnant. There is no shame any more. This society is a babylon, and as a Christian I do not wish to be part of it.

Here are two images that I think are appropriate for the thread
The first one is a map that renames a US state with a country that has the same economic output.
The second one is a table of GDP per capita adjusted for price levels (PPP for the economic initiated).

Originally Posted by brokensickle

I'm tired of hearing the blokes we have helped cry about the US. We're not perfect, that is for sure, we were very reluctant to engage in two wars, WW1, WW2. But in WW2 we were brought in by the Japanese attack in Hawaii and the American mainlands west coast...

We were also reluctant to use the atom-bomb but felt it better to use than suffer so many more casualties in the on going conventional war. But lo, it ended the war. Thank goodness! I'm sure the Japanese are glad that WW2 is history as well.

But as for all these police actions, they only bring grief for US and ammunition for the enemies media. Police actions also weaken our image in the countries of our allies and brings out the Lefties claims as to the US being Imperialist. Hense the groaning about the moaning. Kind of, 'dammed if you do' or 'dammed if you don't'.

But to those ungrateful countries we haved helped I say...Shame on you!!!You two faced individuals who have forgotten the American lives that were lost on your behalf...SHAME ON YOU!



Have a wonderful Day.


Ivan

Hmmm. I am rather tired of reading about the innocence of America and its reluctance to go to war etc. Whilst America had absolutely no interest in getting involved in WW1, President Wilson allowed himself to be conned by British propaganda. If America had stayed out, the war in Europe would have played itself out as a bloody stalemate and a status quo restored in some way. There would have been no Hitler to follow and the Communist revolution in Russia would have been put down. The whole US involvement in WW1 was pointless.

And in WW2 America was never neutral. The diplomatic climate between the US and the Axis powers until 7 Dec 41 was akin to the 'cold war' with the Soviets in the 50s and 60s. Roosevelt made no secret of his sympathies. This was certainly the moral thing to do while Britain was fighting alone, but when the Soviets were involved he should have become much more impartial. Joe Kennedy and Truman wanted Roosevelt to make the US totally neutral after the beginning of the Nazi-Soviet war, in the hope that both sides would fight themselves to total exhaustion. But it was not to be and aggressive clashes with German subs in the Atlantic soon followed. As for Japan, Roosevelt did what he could to provoke a Japanese attack by cutting off oil supplies and other raw materials to that country - it worked.

I'm not sure about the US being reluctant to use the Atom Bomb. There is good evidence that Japan was open to negotiating a surrender well before the first bomb on Hiroshima. But Truman wanted an 'unconditional' surrender instead of just a 'surrender' with a couple of small conditions to allow the Japanese to preserve some dignity. So the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - and 200,000 people died for nothing. In the end the conditions the Japanese demanded - things like being allowed to keep the Emperor - were accepted anyway by the US, so why use the bombs? It seems to me that Truman wanted to frighten the Soviets with the power of the new weapon, used 'in action'. But was this worth killing so many people?

Originally Posted by marklv

Hmmm. I am rather tired of reading about the innocence of America and its reluctance to go to war etc. Whilst America had absolutely no interest in getting involved in WW1, President Wilson allowed himself to be conned by British propaganda. If America had stayed out, the war in Europe would have played itself out as a bloody stalemate and a status quo restored in some way. There would have been no Hitler to follow and the Communist revolution in Russia would have been put down. The whole US involvement in WW1 was pointless.

And in WW2 America was never neutral. The diplomatic climate between the US and the Axis powers until 7 Dec 41 was akin to the 'cold war' with the Soviets in the 50s and 60s. Roosevelt made no secret of his sympathies. This was certainly the moral thing to do while Britain was fighting alone, but when the Soviets were involved he should have become much more impartial. Joe Kennedy and Truman wanted Roosevelt to make the US totally neutral after the beginning of the Nazi-Soviet war, in the hope that both sides would fight themselves to total exhaustion. But it was not to be and aggressive clashes with German subs in the Atlantic soon followed. As for Japan, Roosevelt did what he could to provoke a Japanese attack by cutting off oil supplies and other raw materials to that country - it worked.

I'm not sure about the US being reluctant to use the Atom Bomb. There is good evidence that Japan was open to negotiating a surrender well before the first bomb on Hiroshima. But Truman wanted an 'unconditional' surrender instead of just a 'surrender' with a couple of small conditions to allow the Japanese to preserve some dignity. So the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - and 200,000 people died for nothing. In the end the conditions the Japanese demanded - things like being allowed to keep the Emperor - were accepted anyway by the US, so why use the bombs? It seems to me that Truman wanted to frighten the Soviets with the power of the new weapon, used 'in action'. But was this worth killing so many people?

Mark,

Given that the Soviets barely hung on with US Lend-Lease Aid and contesting North Africa in 1942, do you seriously think that a stalemate would have ensued? Also, can you provide the "good" evidence that Japan was willing to negotiate a surrender and the specific terms that they were willing to bring to the table?

Thanks.

Originally Posted by marklv

Hmmm. I am rather tired of reading about the innocence of America and its reluctance to go to war etc. Whilst America had absolutely no interest in getting involved in WW1, President Wilson allowed himself to be conned by British propaganda. If America had stayed out, the war in Europe would have played itself out as a bloody stalemate and a status quo restored in some way. There would have been no Hitler to follow and the Communist revolution in Russia would have been put down. The whole US involvement in WW1 was pointless.

I kindof agree.

I'm not sure about the US being reluctant to use the Atom Bomb. There is good evidence that Japan was open to negotiating a surrender well before the first bomb on Hiroshima.

No, there isn't.

But Truman wanted an 'unconditional' surrender instead of just a 'surrender' with a couple of small conditions to allow the Japanese to preserve some dignity. So the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - and 200,000 people died for nothing.

For nothing? Please.

In the end the conditions the Japanese demanded - things like being allowed to keep the Emperor - were accepted anyway by the US, so why use the bombs? It seems to me that Truman wanted to frighten the Soviets with the power of the new weapon, used 'in action'. But was this worth killing so many people?

We've had this discussion here already. Far more than 200,000 Japanese would have died if the war had gone on, so sure, it was worth it. Besides, they were the enemy, so killing, oh, all of them, would have been "worth it" too.

A million potential Allied casualites against 2 bombs and 200,000 enemy killed? Hell yes, it was worth it.

-dale

Originally Posted by Shek

Mark,

Given that the Soviets barely hung on with US Lend-Lease Aid and contesting North Africa in 1942, do you seriously think that a stalemate would have ensued? Also, can you provide the "good" evidence that Japan was willing to negotiate a surrender and the specific terms that they were willing to bring to the table?

Thanks.

The evidence is available in books written about the subject. Books like 'Infamy' and 'Day of Deceit' describe Roosevelt's plans to let the US be attacked so that it could have good reason to enter the war. Whatever you believe, it cannot be disputed that by Summer 1945 Japan was totally exhausted and beaten. There would have been no need for an invasion, as a blockade and repeated conventional bombing would have forced Japan to accept surrender. I am constantly amazed by the assumption from most people that an invasion was necessary. The dropping of the bombs was not a military necessity, but it had an important psychological motive, in that it showed the Soviets that America had achieved huge destructive capability. If the bombs had not been dropped, Japan would still have surrendered within a few months, maybe weeks, or face starvation. It was all a political game.

marklv,

all scholarly evidence, including the newly-opened archives of imperial-era japan, reveal that japanese policymakers (read military officers) were quite ready to fight to the last man (and woman).

before the atom bomb, they were considering an armistice (not a surrender). the terms they were looking for were no occupation, japanese trials for any supposed "war criminals", negotiating over holding onto korea/taiwan, no change in government. aka a ceasefire, really.

even after the atom bombs hit, it was not the fact that all those people died which finally caused the japanese to surrender. it was the fact that they thought that america had an unlimited supply of them (not quite true at the time), america was ready to blow every single city up (quite true), and that if that happened, they couldn't take any americans down with them (probably true too).

and -even then-, when the emperor attempted to surrender, more than a few lower-mid level officers attempted a coup to continue the war, which was only stopped because a few of the generals realized the game was up. the last fighting in WWII was japanese fighting other japanese.

regarding those books about US entry into the war, those are conspiracy books, none of them hold up to any sort of strength in academia. the japanese were hellbent on declaring war by any means in december of 1941, because 1. their war machine was going to run out of oil due to US sanctions, 2. their source of oil would need to be replaced by an invasion of southeast asia- and either way the US was not going to let them go further.