Thread: Is the US on the decline?

[QUOTE=brokensickle;450543]Exarecr,

That pretty well sums it up, but America needs to do a few things to sharpen its definition as to its positive character...

1.) Quit Reclining with feet up watching the boob-tube



In the UK a boob-tube is a garment for young ladies to wear in summer. Watching boob-tubes never harmed me. However, if you mean American TV content I will wholeheartedly agree with you as it is the worst I've ever seen.

and cut back on the snacks. Note: when a man is asleep, in a hospital bed, or dead, are not his feet up?


Up where?
Also, a trash can is for putting trash...The boob-tube is full of trash but our heads are for brains not trash.
And those snacks are adding to our waist lines and plugging up our arteries.

Speak for yourself!

2.) Our eagles are only supposed to have bald heads, but with all of the P.C.nessthe eagles wings are being clipped. Have you ever seen an entirely bald eagle? Pathetic indeed

No.

And the gnats are hatching little maggots in the sores of the eagle where its wings were clipped to close.



3.) The people of the world bemoan our presents when we play the 'world cop'.

Utterly false Anyone can send me presents and I promise (cubs honour) that I shall not bemoan the fact

Originally Posted by Zinja

No friend, consumers are not makers of wealth. by markers of wealth i mean in terms of production. Consumers are end users of products. Basically, they consume. They don't add to GDP growth but corporates do.

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.

Originally Posted by Zinja

Even in a free market economy government intervention is necessary.

Minimal government intervention is the best government intervention.

Originally Posted by Zinja

Government is there to give guidance and balance the economy.

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

Originally Posted by Zinja

Government intervention can help stimulate a needed sector in the economy and suppress the unneeded one.

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?

Originally Posted by Zinja

Government intervention can help encourage the corporate world on social issue which otherwise left to their own devices, the corporate world would never think of.

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!

Government should stay out of the social issues in business world.

Originally Posted by Zinja

Right now the US is importing more than its exporting causing the balance of payment deficit (this is what i was hoping Bush's package would entail). It is up to the government to address this situation by encouraging exporters whilst discouraging importers. Left alone the capitalist would pursue the bottom line at whatever cost to the detriment of the economy, and consequently lives of ordinary people.

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.

Originally Posted by Zinja

Not necessarily so. Do you remember the last time the UK had lower taxes? The tory year? The economy was sluggish to put it mildly. People's lives were worse off than they are now. Public services were a disgrace. It was all gloom everywhere.

Without the current taxes the National Health Service would colapse. All the free goodies that the UK citizens are so quick to claim as their entitlement would disappear. Education, local authorities, capital infrasture such as energy power stations, dams, roads etc, and even defense would struggle.

I really can't comment on UK because I don't know enough about its economy.

Originally Posted by Zinja

It takes more than just cutting taxes to make a vibrant economy

You're right. Government needs to get out of the way in addition to lowering taxes.

Originally Posted by gunnut

Minimal government intervention is the best government intervention.


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

Government does have a place in the economy as a regulator. The key is to regulate to the benefit, not detriment, of the economy. The US of the 1870's through 1930's is an example of an industrial economy without government regulation... and the major booms and busts (not to mention unethical business practices which hurt small investors and the American public as a whole) were the result. An economy needs stable, enforced rules under which people do business, and certain safeguards to provide confidence. providing those things is the government's responsibility. Much of modern day Europe is an example of government over-regulating... and the economic damage of that over-regulation is growing with time. Ireland is a fairly good example of a government creating a good business environment through appropriate regulation, as was Japan, Singapore and South Korea... the result was prosperity in places that were very unexpected.

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.

A big part of the cost of doing business is from the standard of living here too... in fact that is more responsible for the trade gap with developing nations than any other factor.

And I for one rather like a certain amount of government regulation with regards to the environment. I am far from a tree hugger, but I like what a genuine commitment by government and population on environmental issues does to a state (Washington) as opposed to merely lip service (albeit very vocal lip service) given by states like California. And the environment is not a common interest that the private sector (some major companies excepted) as a whole will look after... hence it falls within the government's purview, just like defense.

Originally Posted by ace16807

Well, I've been wondering this for awhile. The US seems to be on the decline as world superpower. Certainly, we still have the strongest military and one if not the strongest economies, but I can't help but think that the US isn't up to standards as we it once was. Here are a few of my points. If they are completely ridiculous, though I think some hold water, please point that out. I haven't exactly done a full research point on this.

Economically, though we are still incredibly powerful, the US is leaning towards a reliance on foreign countries on many commodities. Most notably, oil. In a hypothetical, unlikely situation, that OPEC decides to stop shipping us petroleum, I figured that given other sources of petrol, our own production, and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we have about 100 days of adequate amounts of petrol to supply the daily demand. The point isn't that OPEC could stop sending oil, but rather how we shouldn't actually be so Dependant on foreign sources.

This is sort of iffy, but I'm rather confused by the US military spending. It seems that a lot of money is being poured into aviation and naval projects, for example, the production of the USS George H. W. Bush (I think those initials are right...) In my opinion, another aircraft carrier or even more fighters are not needed so much anymore. Shouldn't the money going into those programs be diverted towards troop and vehicle protection and such? Projects that are focused on the warfare we are fighting today, in Iraq?

Lastly, the American people seem to the on the decline as well. Many are incredibly spoiled, and the youth are falling behind in the world in academics. (Based off international test scores, we are ranked horribly, but I don't know specific numbers) The American people as a whole seem only concerned with their own welfare and want instant gratification. I can't speak much for the rest of the country, but at current, my classmates for the most part are completely uninterested in anything academic. I'll make other points later.

The US is in moral decline, and has been since Lyndon B Johnson became president. As for economics, I am not qualified to give an expert answer on the subject, but one thing is certain: sooner or later the US will have to face up to China, and it won't be pretty when it happens. China is holding HUGE amounts of dollars and if it decides to sell them - well, the consequences are pretty obvious, aren't they? Militarily the US will continue to be strong for many years to come, but I can't help feeling that the moral decay in American society will eat away at its strength. It's true that many Americans no longer want to be comfortable and have a happy retirement - they want to have more, and more, and more, and more. It's greed gone mad - the desire for the rich to be even richer. But in the UK it's just as bad; the break up of the family unit has led to money being the only thing that seems to matter. There is no sense of community any more, no more solidarity with those less fortunate, no compassion, no humanity - just greed. It's the problem of the Western world, not just the USA, but in the USA it's just more keenly felt.

The Roman Empire was, in purely military terms, strong almost until the very end, but the combination of capitalism gone mad, immorality and uncontrolled multi-culturalism, destroyed its moral foundations and destriyed it from within. Great civilisations are not destroyed from the outside, but from within, and the Western world has entered its final stage. You don't have to read 'The Decline of the West' by Oswald Spengler to understand that. What Spengler predicted is happening now. The First World War was the first heavy nail in the coffin of the West; the destruction of the old order and the monarchies that had dominated Europe since the middle ages brought about a massive cultural and moral chasm, that was initially filled by extremist, idealistic philosophies like Fascism and Communism, but has now been filled by unfettered capitalism alone - plutocracy, masquerading as democracy. There is now no more idealism, only selfishness and individualism, encapsulated by the relentless drive for more and more profit, at the expense of anything else .

I despise this period in history and regret having been born in it. The only good thing about it has been the growth of science and technology, and also of medical care.

I predict that we will soon see a MASSIVE crash in the financial markets, that will make 1929 seem like a small blip. I also predict huge unemployment as a result of it, and widespread social anarchy, with shooting on the streets. The end is near.

Originally Posted by marklv

The US is in moral decline, and has been since Lyndon B Johnson became president. As for economics, I am not qualified to give an expert answer on the subject, but one thing is certain: sooner or later the US will have to face up to China, and it won't be pretty when it happens. China is holding HUGE amounts of dollars and if it decides to sell them - well, the consequences are pretty obvious, aren't they? Militarily the US will continue to be strong for many years to come, but I can't help feeling that the moral decay in American society will eat away at its strength. It's true that many Americans no longer want to be comfortable and have a happy retirement - they want to have more, and more, and more, and more. It's greed gone mad - the desire for the rich to be even richer. But in the UK it's just as bad; the break up of the family unit has led to money being the only thing that seems to matter. There is no sense of community any more, no more solidarity with those less fortunate, no compassion, no humanity - just greed. It's the problem of the Western world, not just the USA, but in the USA it's just more keenly felt.

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.

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.

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.

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.

GLYN,

[QUOTE=glyn;450619]

Originally Posted by brokensickle

Exarecr,

That pretty well sums it up, but America needs to do a few things to sharpen its definition as to its positive character...

I agree!

1.) Quit Reclining with feet up watching the boob-tube

Yes!

In the UK a boob-tube is a garment for young ladies to wear in summer. Watching boob-tubes never harmed me. However, if you mean American TV content I will wholeheartedly agree with you as it is the worst I've ever seen.

Yes it's bad! Watching boob-tubes would harm you if Mrs. Glyn was watching you watch the boob-tube.:P

and cut back on the snacks. Note: when a man is asleep, in a hospital bed, or dead, are not his feet up?

Up where?

As in pointing toward the stars.

Also, a trash can is for putting trash...The boob-tube is full of trash but our heads are for brains not trash.
And those snacks are adding to our waist lines and plugging up our arteries.

Speak for yourself!

Just a little American introspection. Not of ladies upper garments.

For my age and height I am in pretty good shape; or so says my darling wife.

2.) Our eagles are only supposed to have bald heads, but with all of the P.C.nessthe eagles wings are being clipped. Have you ever seen an entirely bald eagle? Pathetic indeed

No.

Eagles look like baby buzzards when they have been defrocked. Not a pretty sight for someones national emblem. By the way I was paraphrasing about our Air force strength being belittled by 'Politically Correctness'. But I'm sure you knew that.

And the gnats are hatching little maggots in the sores of the eagle where its wings were clipped to close.

I was referring to Exacter's comparison to our "Eagles" and the enemies "Gnats"

3.) The people of the world bemoan our presents when we play the 'world cop'.

Utterly false Anyone can send me presents and I promise (cubs honour) that I shall not bemoan the fact

Oops, Bad spellin' CORRECTION...Presence. Caught me again you darn limey.

But maybe they bemoan our presents because there made in China, and wrapped in old news papers.:P )




Ivan

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'm actually talking in relation to other countries. (well the one other country that I'm familiar with intimately)

Originally Posted by astralis

brokensickle,

1. i'm not sure what you mean here. it sounds vaguely like the german writers circa 1905-1914, whom proclaimed that germanic culture was dying, the people were becoming emasculated socialists, and that the only thing that would cure this would be a good old war.

3. the only reason why the US helps anyone is because there is a distinct benefit for the US. this is simply what states do. we're not helping them purely out of the goodness of our hearts. regarding letting the people of those countries solve it, you're right- that's a pretty good idea. however, the basis for that is to trade with those countries and enrich their people. because it is not the lower class that revolts, it is the middle class.

and the US generally does not have enough patience to wait several generations for that.

4. most people living in dictatorships know that their form of governance is screwed up; however, the only alternative most of them know is anarchy. in the end, democracy can at most be helped along- those people must want democracy (not just voting, but protecting minority rights, etc etc) badly enough themselves.

the problem with your black and white approach is that not all evil is wholly evil, and not all good is wholly good. in saving the lives of millions and liberating europe and japan, how many civilians did US bombers horribly burn alive, asphyxiate, and bury in the ashes of their homes?

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

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

So stop helping them. You know you're doing for your own interest. So stop.

Oh but wait. If you stop then your interests will no longer be protected. Huh. Maybe those accusations about world police and imperialism have some grounds ......

Originally Posted by Feanor

So stop helping them. You know you're doing for your own interest. So stop.

Oh but wait. If you stop then your interests will no longer be protected. Huh. Maybe those accusations about world police and imperialism have some grounds ......

Did you read my post or not. I believe we should stop and take care of our own. I would quit giving the ungrateful reason to complain...I could not have been clearer!!!!!!

If all else fails read the whole post. Take off the dark sun glasses.To

Ivan

Originally Posted by brokensickle

Did you read my post or not. I believe we should stop and take care of our own. I would quit giving the ungrateful reason to complain...I could not have been clearer!!!!!!

If all else fails read the whole post. Take off the dark sun glasses.To

Ivan

I'm trying to point out why the U.S. won't do as you suggest. I read your post. But sure. I'll ditch the sunglasses for you Ivan

Originally Posted by Feanor

I'm trying to point out why the U.S. won't do as you suggest. I read your post. But sure. I'll ditch the sunglasses for you Ivan

Thank You Feanor.
I perfer the rose color ones myself.



Ivan