Thread: Economic remedies of USA Empire

Originally Posted by NUS

Nice summary, but i doubt you will find any understanding from American members of the forum.

Also, all measures you offered have long-term effect, but i think there is not enough time for them to take effect. There is about 6 months, may be year before things will get really ugly and uncontrollable.

Hi Nus! I don't underestimate the severity of current crisis which is far from bottoming out (like markets and many people believe). However it is not the one to kill USA Empire.... it will survive this one but will be in bad shape to rule the world and ensure global stability...

The strength of ANY empire is economic, millitary and cultural dominance... the crisis may only decay economic domminance.... but it takes time before millitary and cultural dominance goes by..... for example most of currently existing CBGs and war planes would still be in service 15 years from now!!!

So, I think that decline of USA Empire should not be expected earlier than a 15 years from now!!!

There is aslo a chance that USA can rethink their course and win few more decades of absulute domminance.... like Rome have done it few times.... and we are here to discuss what they can do to achieve that!

Hi Garry, how are you? There's a street not too far from me named Garry. I should steal the street sign for you.

Originally Posted by Garry

USA is providing global security to the world for free... but it taxes US taxpayer for that, it is not sustainable if USA economy continue shrinking compared to the world.... now itis possible due to the old pile of weapons left from cold war... however, this level cannot be sustained... if this trend is continued in 2 decades USA will not be capable to dominate the world millitarilly and ensure global stability

We do get some stuff in return. Basing rights, cultural exchange, and on top of it all, business opportunities. Can't do business if the world is on fire.

Originally Posted by Garry

1) Ease immigration rules and ensure inflow of many tens of million of new workforce from Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe.
I understand that this is a political suiside for any politician..... but USA was growing 19th and most of 20th century due to constant IMMIGRATION of workforce... once this flow weakened USA growth would decline. Lets stop this crap about productivity and efficiency.... it is very good to certain level but can not really replace the raw factor of the growth - LABOR... cheap labor!!!

We have immigration restriction because we want to be able to assimilate the new comers. Too many immigrants too fast will create ethnic enclaves. The early Chinese immigrants experienced this situation. Everyone knows about Chinatown. The Chinese secluded themselves in there for a variety of reasons and didn't integrate with the rest of the society for a long time. Same thing is happening now with the Mexican population. It's worse in the Mexican's case because their homeland is just a fence away so there's no need to assimilate. And unlike Canada to the north, Mexico has a very different culture than our own.

Originally Posted by Garry

2) Overcome environmental lobby which prevents use of USA homebased natural resources.... availability of natural resources is another RAW FACTOR of the growth.... lets stop crap talks about new alternative economy.... all those new service industries and new economy are SUPLEMENTS to good old base industries!!!
USA was suppliying world with natural resources till 60-es.... home base resources in USA are sufficient to narrow down its commodity deficit.

Absolutely agree!

Originally Posted by Garry

3) Spend many hundred bullion of dollars for nuclear power industry which would reduce its dependence for imported energy. USA have everything to build up its nuclear power generation to meet 90% of base load!!! It releases huge amount of hydrocarbons for alternative uses. France overdone a bit with nuclear energy, but it is still good sample of policy in this field! De Gaulle was smart in this regard after he lost Algeria and hopes for oil supplies.

We don't need to spend government money on nuclear power. All we need to do is relax some restrictions and the plants will literally build themselves. This solution applies to all other industries too.

Originally Posted by Garry

4) STOP wasting money on that ALTERNATIVE / RENEWABLE energy CRAP. Lots of funds wasted with little effect. If any effect comes in it costs far too much to be economically reasonable. Simple calculation and googling proves that with current technologies less than 10% of petrol needs would be replaced if ALL of globally available crop lands are used for bio fuels.... and cost for that would be ABNORMAL. Even Hitler's synthetic fuel approach was smarter than that (they supplied 50% of their need with coal synthesized fuel). Wind and sollar is very marginal compared to size of energy needs.... unregular... and again... very expensive!

Stop wasting GOVERNMENT money. Private sectors can spend however much money they want.

Originally Posted by Garry

5) Introduce petrol tax.... another political suiside but it is the only reasonable solution to intruduce efficient use of energy in US. Today, USA consumes slightly less than half of global petroleum... while having one third of global vehicle fleet... => your cars are consuming on average 60% more petroleum than cars elsewhere in the world.

We have a lot of gas tax already. Every gallon comes with $0.186 federal tax. Each state then adds its own. On top of that is state sales tax, if one exists. Here in California, close to 1/3 of the cost of gasoline is composed of various taxes to the federal, state, and local government.

Originally Posted by Garry

5) Rethink its defense spendings... does US NAVY really needs 12 CBG + 10 more Marrine small carriers? it is 2 times more than combined carrier strenght of all other nations. How much longer would US Millitary continue paying HUGELLY overinflated prices for its hardware?!?!?!? what is reason for virtuallly all R&D budgets overspent? Does US really need that big nuclear force? Why its cost per soldier is one of the highest globally? Why Kazan Helicopter plant designed a medium sized helicopter (Ansat) for $350mln from scratch while Bell spend more on just re-engining its all time popular 206?

Carriers may be expensive, but they are cheaper than maintaining bases around the world and the associated political cost of basing rights.

US soldiers are expensive because they train a lot. More money and more sweat = less blood.

R&D really needs to have more oversight and accountability, I agree.

Originally Posted by Garry

6) Introduce short conscript millitary duty.... 6month compulsory training is enough to ensure good mobilization reserve if one is really needed. In exchange, reduce further size of regular army and national guards.

No, we got away from that for a reason. We want people in the military who are motivated to be there.

Originally Posted by Garry

7) Completelly reform its tax system..... Guys,.... if there is something ineficient in the world it is US tax system. it is full of loopes and holes and it has such a high rates that invites people to pay consultants selling this loopes and holes. US needs tax revenues but not overtaxing business!!!

Absolutely agree!!!

Originally Posted by Garry

I would be happy to read your comments and to hear what other actions can by done for USA to delay decline of its global empire till the end of 21st century....

Garry The Nomad

If I didn't know you better, I'd thought you're a libertarian.

Originally Posted by Garry

I see the following actions possbile to ease its situation for a while and to restart growth

1) Ease immigration rules and ensure inflow of many tens of million of new workforce from Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe.
I understand that this is a political suiside for any politician..... but USA was growing 19th and most of 20th century due to constant IMMIGRATION of workforce... once this flow weakened USA growth would decline. Lets stop this crap about productivity and efficiency.... it is very good to certain level but can not really replace the raw factor of the growth - LABOR... cheap labor!!!

We don't need cheap labor, we need highly productive skilled labor. Using numbers alone to increase production means you need to expand everything else- social services, power grid, water/sewage etc. A smaller more productive workforce is less of a tax burden.

2) Overcome environmental lobby which prevents use of USA homebased natural resources.... availability of natural resources is another RAW FACTOR of the growth.... lets stop crap talks about new alternative economy.... all those new service industries and new economy are SUPLEMENTS to good old base industries!!!
USA was suppliying world with natural resources till 60-es.... home base resources in USA are sufficient to narrow down its commodity deficit.

I agree with you within reason. When the US was supplying the world with so much raw materials we were killing our rivers and lakes and almost wiped out our national mascot. if new technology can extract resources cleanly or deal with waste in an environmentally safe manner then go for it. Its not about Global Warming but about keeping America healthy and beautiful.

3) Spend many hundred bullion of dollars for nuclear power industry which would reduce its dependence for imported energy. USA have everything to build up its nuclear power generation to meet 90% of base load!!! It releases huge amount of hydrocarbons for alternative uses. France overdone a bit with nuclear energy, but it is still good sample of policy in this field! De Gaulle was smart in this regard after he lost Algeria and hopes for oil supplies.

Bingo, plus invest in perfecting Fusion. Who ever gets a viable Fusion based power grid will lead the next century.

4) STOP wasting money on that ALTERNATIVE / RENEWABLE energy CRAP. Lots of funds wasted with little effect. If any effect comes in it costs far too much to be economically reasonable. Simple calculation and googling proves that with current technologies less than 10% of petrol needs would be replaced if ALL of globally available crop lands are used for bio fuels.... and cost for that would be ABNORMAL. Even Hitler's synthetic fuel approach was smarter than that (they supplied 50% of their need with coal synthesized fuel). Wind and sollar is very marginal compared to size of energy needs.... unregular... and again... very expensive!

Investment in research makes new technology possible. Yes it costs $20,000 to take a house off the grid. But once the panels can reliably last for 15 years then its worth the investment. Same with wind or microwater turbines.

5) Introduce petrol tax.... another political suiside but it is the only reasonable solution to intruduce efficient use of energy in US. Today, USA consumes slightly less than half of global petroleum... while having one third of global vehicle fleet... => your cars are consuming on average 60% more petroleum than cars elsewhere in the world.

We consume more because many of us live in Rural areas not served by transit services. Increasing the gas tax negatively affects everyone outside of the biggest metro areas. A better goal is to force higher mileage requirements so long as the cost increase is offset by the fuel cost savings.


[quote]

5) Rethink its defense spendings... does US NAVY really needs 12 CBG + 10 more Marrine small carriers? it is 2 times more than combined carrier strenght of all other nations.

Yes it does. having the most powerful power projection force in the world means we can if we need to dictate terms on our terms by regulating trade by force with those we want to dictate too. say for example China decides that its time to take Taiwan by force. A large navy lets the US fight the Chinese and intercept their commerce anywhere on the globe while still maintaining the ability to smash anyone else who thinks to get froggy while the US is occupied.

How much longer would US Millitary continue paying HUGELLY overinflated prices for its hardware?!?!?!? what is reason for virtuallly all R&D budgets overspent? Does US really need that big nuclear force? Why its cost per soldier is one of the highest globally? Why Kazan Helicopter plant designed a medium sized helicopter (Ansat) for $350mln from scratch while Bell spend more on just re-engining its all time popular 206?

Apples and Oranges. Now one else has a super carrier, stealth fighter, stealth bomber, stealth fighter bomber, a helicopter than can match the Apache Longbow etc. The US leads in most technology areas not just weapons but in information systems as well. Technology dominace= military domiance.

6) Introduce short conscript millitary duty.... 6month compulsory training is enough to ensure good mobilization reserve if one is really needed. In exchange, reduce further size of regular army and national guards.

And gut the instatutional memory that makes the armed forces so deadly. Sure our cost per troop is highest. But look at the results, in combat no one has been able to stand against the soft bellied wimpy Americans. No matter thier willingness or combat experience Irag and A-stan show that any enemy who stops and tries to stand and fight dies.

7) Completelly reform its tax system..... Guys,.... if there is something ineficient in the world it is US tax system. it is full of loopes and holes and it has such a high rates that invites people to pay consultants selling this loopes and holes. US needs tax revenues but not overtaxing business!!!

But or system works for the most part. Catching legitmate law breakers and people who move money offshore is one thing. But letting the money escape the tax man if it goes into investments is good policy. As is using tax revenues to make the distance between the rungs shorter for those seeking to climb up the ladder so they too can start paying taxes. The problems lie in what we spend on- adding to senior care is a waste of money, as is the war on drugs. Neither generates a return on the money spent and senior care promotes government dependence.

I would be happy to read your comments and to hear what other actions can by done for USA to delay decline of its global empire till the end of 21st century....

Garry The Nomad

Promote and enforce fair trade not free trade. Trade should be weighted so that countries like China can't dump cheap products and not buy in return. Fair trade means more jobs for Americans. Also lower corporate taxes to reduce the cost of manufacturing in America so that the American workers higher productivity makes made in America the smart choice. Cut capitol gains taxes and inheritance taxes to put money directly in the hands of people who will spend and invest. Inflate inflate inflate- it will be painful but as the dollar devalues the cost of exporting goes down and the attractiveness of domestic production goes up. Plus since we issued our debt in our own currency we can simply print a not with the right number on it and pay it off. Even if we don't do that, we can use the threat of it to ensure fair trade.

1. You can't have cheap labor. Immigrants whom are coming to the US expect better life and expect for their children to have better life than they had. So there is tendency, for those children to move upwards and join the upper class and create the deficit of cheap labor. Also, working in the US is regulated by laws and those laws guarantee certain rights for the workers. You can't have a domestic cheap/poor workforce forever unless you make them slaves. Costs of having large cheap workforce are greater than small but skilled one.
2. US domestic natural resources are not sufficient enough to satisfy US demand and provide growth in the future.
3. You can't build a hundreds of nuclear power plants every year to satisfy energy demands. You can, but than in 10 years you will have a trillion tons of nuclear waste and be stuck with it.
4. Alternative and renewable energy resources. Sure, they are not enough to sustain current lifestyle and they will never be efficient as the carbon based ones since your lifestyle is designed by carbon based fuels.
5. Petrol tax is a good solution but it is too late for that.
6. Rethinking defense spending. Every project that is done for US military has a budget. It has mercantile component embedded in it and the higher the price of R&D is the higher price of single unit will be which than means more money for the company that makes that product. It guarantees profit. If you say that you made something and that something costs 10 billion dollars and that you had to go over the budget, than that something must be worth it than, and you can jack up the price as much as you want. Reason why Russian helicopter costs 350 million is because in Russian way of thinking, mercantile component don't exist. They were poor for a long period of time but they needed stuff, so they are used to work for almost nothing. When you have an industry that is poor and doesn't have enough money, you look in the technology ,in ideas that will offer best bang for the buck. While in the US, money is plenty and the more money you have you have more freedom to explore, but also the room for error is greater.
7. You can't have short term active duty service based on a draft method. It costs more and considering the deployment of US forces in combat zones, having soldiers with 6 months of rotation means that as soon as one batch learns something it gets replaced with a new batch that doesn't know anything and you erode actual combat experience which than takes the tool in body bags.
8. Well for taxes I don't know but I am sure that they suck.

The major problem of the US is the way of life which is unsustainable and too many people don't know or don't want to accept that fact for a very very long period of time.

Garry,
Sorry, I knee deep in a kitchen remodel and basement finish job plus a professional education course, so I don't have time to read your post and comment now, but I would like to say hello and hope that all is well with you.

It is not only the defense industry that has that problem (budget breach). It happens in almost every project that is undertaken. From computer games, software, movies up to the defense industry. If one movie has a budget of 100 million dollars the stress to make a block buster is far more greater than the movie with a 20.000 dollars budget. Computer games are another and the most vivid example of such philosophy. First game is made with a small budget, but since it is a first game the development isn't saddled with budget costs and expectations. So developers have the time to work in a more relaxed manner.Also since their new game is a first game that will hit the market, they are far more focused on their project. When the game hits the market and scores big time, the developers earn a lot of money and have bigger budget. But since there is a lot more money at stake their freedom is limited since they expect to return the money invested and to make profit. So actually the bar is risen by multiple times. In order to achieve that they have to employ new people, more skilled ones and the costs rise. So paradox accrues. Instead to fell more relaxed since you have more means to develop something you are actually more stressed out because you are feared of the outcome (will your next game succeed its precursor). And that stress than reflects on the creative process and becomes a drag factor. That is why, once the companies establish franchises they do not deviate form it. They are playing safe by making sequels all the time and each sequel is expected to beat the previous one. Budgets increase stress increases and the probability of mess up rises exponentially. The major sacrifice is than in originality since it is too risky to invest in something new, over time the company system gets rigid and loses agility and often company gets ruined because their franchise loses potency over time and the market gets fed up with the same idea that gets recycled over and over again. I mean look at the terminators, aliens, star tracks, star wars, jaws. And yes don't forget the King Kong, which is the number one example of such philosophy, the demise of Peter Jackson....In most cases sequel never matches the first movie that is released.
There is another side in cost increase and that is the the staff. Let's say that you have two engineers. One comes form a poor country and other one comes form a rich country. The first one is the poor person despite his or hers abilities and the poverty that he grew up in, embedded itself in his mind set. The rich engineer whom went on Harvard's,Stanford's,Oxford's has a legacy. Since he is from the rich family he needs to prove that he is worthy of family name, than since he went to rich school he needs to prove worthy of being the rich school student and at the end when he enters the rich company to work in he is three times more saddled since now he as the member of such company he needs to live up to the company name. But since he is rich, he doesn't have the poverty restraints as the first engineer so his mindset works differently. Poor engineer will always look to make savings in the project, because his mindset is shaped by poverty experience while the engineer form the Oxford, Staford schools will always try to make expensive projects since the mercantile line says that things need to be expensive in order to be good, since the measure of worth in his mindset is always measured by material values.

This applies on all engineers unless they are German. German engineers work the same regardless if they are poor or rich , since they are genetically coded for engineering.

Originally Posted by jackass

USA international trade flow is over 40% of international trade flow

And another thing...

One: What does that statement mean?

Two: I am no expert on international finance (I imagine you are) the 'trade flow' is not in USA's favor? Explain?

Three: Al Gore's rules of economy don't rule here, B(ody) O(dor) bama's do... please explain, without McPain...

Commies trying to save "USA empire".

Originally Posted by Oscar

Commies trying to save "USA empire".

Garry is less "commie" than most of the crackheads infesting our government.

Originally Posted by gunnut

Garry is less "commie" than most of the crackheads infesting our government.

Ah, its just a term for ex USSR people. Who did you have in mind as being red in the Obama Administration?

Originally Posted by Oscar

Ah, its just a term for ex USSR people. Who did you have in mind as being red in the Obama Administration?

If by "red" you mean statists like those in the former Soviet Union who advocate government control of everything, then just about everyone in his cabinet. They aren't communists. They are statists. It would be easier if you can tell me ONE person in Obama's administration who is for LESS government control.

Then we come down to California state legislature. Every single democrat there wants nanny state. They want control in every facet of our lives. Did you know they took their time to pass a bill that prohibits public schools from serving kids milk with more than 2% fat content? Hey we have a 9 gazillion dollar budget deficit but let's ban milk first!

Originally Posted by Versus

It is not only the defense industry that has that problem (budget breach). It happens in almost every project that is undertaken. From computer games, software, movies up to the defense industry. If one movie has a budget of 100 million dollars the stress to make a block buster is far more greater than the movie with a 20.000 dollars budget. Computer games are another and the most vivid example of such philosophy. First game is made with a small budget, but since it is a first game the development isn't saddled with budget costs and expectations. So developers have the time to work in a more relaxed manner.Also since their new game is a first game that will hit the market, they are far more focused on their project. When the game hits the market and scores big time, the developers earn a lot of money and have bigger budget. But since there is a lot more money at stake their freedom is limited since they expect to return the money invested and to make profit. So actually the bar is risen by multiple times. In order to achieve that they have to employ new people, more skilled ones and the costs rise. So paradox accrues. Instead to fell more relaxed since you have more means to develop something you are actually more stressed out because you are feared of the outcome (will your next game succeed its precursor). And that stress than reflects on the creative process and becomes a drag factor. That is why, once the companies establish franchises they do not deviate form it. They are playing safe by making sequels all the time and each sequel is expected to beat the previous one. Budgets increase stress increases and the probability of mess up rises exponentially. The major sacrifice is than in originality since it is too risky to invest in something new, over time the company system gets rigid and loses agility and often company gets ruined because their franchise loses potency over time and the market gets fed up with the same idea that gets recycled over and over again. I mean look at the terminators, aliens, star tracks, star wars, jaws. And yes don't forget the King Kong, which is the number one example of such philosophy, the demise of Peter Jackson....In most cases sequel never matches the first movie that is released.
There is another side in cost increase and that is the the staff. Let's say that you have two engineers. One comes form a poor country and other one comes form a rich country. The first one is the poor person despite his or hers abilities and the poverty that he grew up in, embedded itself in his mind set. The rich engineer whom went on Harvard's,Stanford's,Oxford's has a legacy. Since he is from the rich family he needs to prove that he is worthy of family name, than since he went to rich school he needs to prove worthy of being the rich school student and at the end when he enters the rich company to work in he is three times more saddled since now he as the member of such company he needs to live up to the company name. But since he is rich, he doesn't have the poverty restraints as the first engineer so his mindset works differently. Poor engineer will always look to make savings in the project, because his mindset is shaped by poverty experience while the engineer form the Oxford, Staford schools will always try to make expensive projects since the mercantile line says that things need to be expensive in order to be good, since the measure of worth in his mindset is always measured by material values.

This applies on all engineers unless they are German. German engineers work the same regardless if they are poor or rich , since they are genetically coded for engineering.

Hi Sir, your view is very interesting. I met the same in my company.... really - matching past success is a tough thing... King Kong example is right at the point...

In fact, Russian millitary engineers have the same problem at the end of the cold war.... the R&D costs were only rising.... and only economic collapse have stopped this process. Once they become poor they again focused on achieving the same result with most cost efficient manner.

Another example of same effect in Russia is a Bulava marine ICBM project. The designer has developed Topol ICBM and promissed to design its naval version with high level of compatibility.... as the result they overspent their budget many times and produced an ICBM which still can not be called reliable carrier of the charge.

Interesting!

Originally Posted by Shek

Garry,
Sorry, I knee deep in a kitchen remodel and basement finish job plus a professional education course, so I don't have time to read your post and comment now, but I would like to say hello and hope that all is well with you.

Hi Shek! Glad to hear that you are OK and busy!
I am fine. Jobless (laid off from my investment bank in fall 2008), and doing some consulting projects to earn money. Luckilly, I accumulated good cussion in the bull years and can afford living jobless for one and half decade... yet, I feel more comfortable working and earning something. So I start taking consulting offers. Paradox - I am more busy now when I am unemployed

Now I am stuck in Central Asia. I am flying back to my family every weekend.... for already 6 month.... 5 hour flight on Friday and back on Sunday/Monday night. Initially I though I will break appart ... now I am so used to it that I fell asleep long before aircraft takes off and wake up right after landing my kid knows that I will show up on weekend no matter what. My wife yet tollerates my life... but seems like I have to end this fun to keep my family.... don't want to be fired from my husbands position

How are you? what education you're going through?