NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[wahday]

Bear in mind that it is not necessary to run a federal budget that has no deficit every year. This has been the case in many instances in the past. Between 1983 and 1992, for example, the US averaged $206 billion a year in deficits. I'm not saying its a GOOD thing to run a deficit, but I also don't think its a good thing to think we can budget our way out of such a large one (predicated by our financial situation, lest anyone forget about the recession...) over too short a period of time. That's just unsound policy, IMO, because it often requires removing critical programs that will end up costing the government even more in the long run (I've cited the healthcare example before - that if a sick person goes to the hospital, they WILL be treated even if they cannot pay and ultimately, tax dollars will be used to reimburse the providers - why not just pay for the service at the outset? It would be a lot cheaper!).

For a little perspective, I thought it helpful to know that the federal deficit has breached 10 percent of GDP four times in US history: during the Civil War, during World War I and World War II, and in aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008.

Here is what it looked like as far as US federal deficit as a percentage of GDP (the higher the number, the larger the deficit)

2010 8.92
2009 10.01
1942 12.04
1943 28.05
1944 22.35
1945 24.07
1918 11.88
1919 16.85

True, there are many other ways in which our current situation is different from these past instances, but my point is that I feel the mania about the deficit is a little overblown. In that respect, I think the Republicans have done a good job of framing the argument - that "spending is out of control" and we have to "reign in" this outrageous situation. Personally, I'm not convinced these are even the case - but I do think that the Democrats have engaged in this discourse to their detriment instead of standing up for the importance of the programs that exist which help many people which stimulating growth and for taking a more long term approach to controlling deficit spending. Its not a problem we are going to resolve in a year and the American people need to understand that.

IMHO...

 

[kjel]

Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security comprised 50% of the 2010 discretionary budget of $1.36 trillion. That does not include funding for the wars which is accomplished through appropriations. We should start there in addition to the other suggestions already mentioned.

 

[mgk920]

Mike, are you asking for something that we would do that is politically possible? Or just what we would do if elected supreme dictator?

The problem is that we are fast reaching a 'laws of physics' limit with regards to the federal deficit - a point will come when we (the USA's Federal Government) WILL be cut off, whether it is "politically possible" or not. And the people doing the cutting off will NOT be kind, compassionate and caring about it, either. When that happens, either it will be cuts more draconian than what is being proposed now or a hyper-inflation like what Mexico, Brazil and many other countries went through during the 1980s and 1990s (it likely won't be as bad as what Czechoslovakia or Zimbabwe went through more recently, though). There is only so much wealth available in the private economy to cover it through taxation - or by seizing it through the reduction in value that happens when money is 'printed' - and when it's gone - it's gone.

Mike

 

[imaplanner]

I was thinking about the GOP budget some more. By eliminating medicare AND eliminating the Obamacare prohibition on discriminating against pre-existing conditions, most seniors would not even be able to purchase health insurance - even if they could afford the 20 to 30k a year out of pocket the insurance companies wouldn't insure them.

 

[mgk920]

I was thinking about the GOP budget some more. By eliminating medicare AND eliminating the Obamacare prohibition on discriminating against pre-existing conditions, most seniors would not even be able to purchase health insurance - even if they could afford the 20 to 30k a year out of pocket the insurance companies wouldn't insure them.

Like the wonderful elderly care that is frequently being reported on in the British press about their single-payer? Gotcha!

:h:

(example)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...shamed-over-callous-treatment-of-elderly.html

Their press is rife with stories of this kind.

Mike

 

[imaplanner]

Like the wonderful elderly care that is frequently being reported on in the British press about their single-payer? Gotcha!

:h:

(example)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...shamed-over-callous-treatment-of-elderly.html

Their press is rife with stories of this kind.

Mike

No. Probably much worse than that - since horrible health care is better than no health care.

Whats with the gotcha comment? What did you get me?

 

[CJC]

The problem is that we are fast reaching a 'laws of physics' limit with regards to the federal deficit - a point will come when we (the USA's Federal Government) WILL be cut off, whether it is "politically possible" or not. And the people doing the cutting off will NOT be kind, compassionate and caring about it, either. When that happens, either it will be cuts more draconian than what is being proposed now or a hyper-inflation like what Mexico, Brazil and many other countries went through during the 1980s and 1990s (it likely won't be as bad as what Czechoslovakia or Zimbabwe went through more recently, though). There is only so much wealth available in the private economy to cover it through taxation - or by seizing it through the reduction in value that happens when money is 'printed' - and when it's gone - it's gone.

Mike

You didn't really answer my question, but I'll assume that "being politically possible" is not a prerequisite for your question, since we're discussing things like Ryan's plan. Here's a start on what I would do:

1. Eliminate the corporate income tax
2. Eliminate all farm subsidies
3. Eliminate all green energy subsidies over three years (ethanol immediately, others phased in over three years). This would be linked to #6 - with a carbon tax, they're getting the subsidy in the reverse way.
4. Eliminate the mortgage interest tax deduction
5. Over a period of ten years, eliminate all payroll taxes and replace with a progressively structured VAT. As part of this bill, include incentives for states to eliminate sales, income, and payroll taxes and rely more on land use taxes.
6. Institute a carbon tax, and focus it more towards geo-political goals rather than environmental goals (though it would obviously still serve an environmental purpose too), meaning that carbon from oil is taxed at a higher rate than carbon from coal, etc. This would be the biggest additional revenue source, and would fall primarily on the middle class, but it sets us up to build a better economy all around (especially one more insulated from shocks from the Middle East, Russia, Venezuela, etc, which also allows us to spend less on defense to prevent these shocks).
7. Add four additional income tax brackets at somewhere around $500k, $1 million, $5 million, and $10 million, topping out at 40%.
8. Lower capital gains rates to 10%, but raise the holding period to five years, otherwise it's standard income rates. Leave dividends rate at 15%.
9. Elminate Medicare and Medicaid over ten years (starting now) and adopt a Dutch or Swiss-style regulated and subsidized medical insurance exchange (must be compulsory for the entire populace to work).
10. Eliminate SS over ten years (starting now) and replace with an Australian or Singaporean-style public/private savings scheme.
11. Shrink the military by 20% over five years - flat monetary cuts that each service can determine on their own.
12. Eliminate the TSA and go back to contractors being hired by individual airports for security.

And last, but not least:

13. Monetize at least $4 trillion in debt over the next two years, more if inflation is still too low. This is especially important, because eliminating the housing subsidy will cause another $1-2 trillion (or more) in housing deflation over the next couple years.


There are a lot of other things to discuss that would need to be changed with some of the changes above, but this a starting point to what I would do as supreme dictator

 

[wahday]

Like the wonderful elderly care that is frequently being reported on in the British press about their single-payer? Gotcha!

I'm not sure how you can assert a causal relationship between the single payer system and the treatment of these elderly patients. As someone who has placed 3 people in nursing homes (and moved them out of some as well) I can assure you that this very same type of abuse and neglect occurs with high incidence within our own private health caree model. Many states even have a hotline number exclusively devoted to nursing care abuse (our is called the Elder Abuse Hotline). There is even a national organization dedicated to it, directed by the US Administration on Aging: http://www.ncea.aoa.gov/NCEAroot/Main_Site/Index.aspx

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

The problem is that we are fast reaching a 'laws of physics' limit with regards to the federal deficit - a point will come when we (the USA's Federal Government) WILL be cut off, whether it is "politically possible" or not. And the people doing the cutting off will NOT be kind, compassionate and caring about it, either. When that happens, either it will be cuts more draconian than what is being proposed now or a hyper-inflation like what Mexico, Brazil and many other countries went through during the 1980s and 1990s (it likely won't be as bad as what Czechoslovakia or Zimbabwe went through more recently, though). There is only so much wealth available in the private economy to cover it through taxation - or by seizing it through the reduction in value that happens when money is 'printed' - and when it's gone - it's gone.

Mike

You wouldn't know physics if an apple fell on your head at terminal velocity. As Wahday's chart points out, you are talking crazy science.

Now that people have pointed out what they would do... like they always do when you use that ploy... you will jump away from their answers and go back to the mad science answers.

 

[kjel]

I'm not sure how you can assert a causal relationship between the single payer system and the treatment of these elderly patients. As someone who has placed 3 people in nursing homes (and moved them out of some as well) I can assure you that this very same type of abuse and neglect occurs with high incidence within our own private health care model. Many states even have a hotline number exclusively devoted to nursing care abuse (our is called the Elder Abuse Hotline). There is even a national organization dedicated to it, directed by the US Administration on Aging: http://www.ncea.aoa.gov/NCEAroot/Main_Site/Index.aspx

Exactly. You don't need to hop over the pond to see that type of thing, it exists right here. It's also shameful that an elderly couple has to literally be destitute for Medicare to pick up the nursing home bill. Unless you have long term care insurance vast majority of people will end up in the same boat because of the cost of care rapidly depletes any kind of personal savings one might have.

Don't even get me started on health insurance.

 

[imaplanner]

The GOP refuses to fund the government because the want to cut funding for womens health.

The last major obstacle to compromise is funding for Planned Parenthood

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/08/government-shutdown-negotiators-deal-close_n_846577.html

This isn't even about abortion. Planned Parenthood is prohibited by law to use public funds for abortion. Public funding is used by Planned Parenthood for womens health checkup like pap smears and other cancer and health screening services.

I can't even begin to describe how disgusted I am by the GOP.

 

[wahday]

This isn't even about abortion. Planned Parenthood is prohibited by law to use public funds for abortion. Public funding is used by Planned Parenthood for womens health checkup like pap smears and other cancer and health screening services.

But they can TALK to women about abortion as a (legal) option if they are pregnant and that's enough to rankle many social conservatives. Its really sad. Indeed, every girlfriend I had went to PP for regular checkups and screenings, including my now-wife. She only recently stopped going there and goes to her regular physician for these things. No abortions needed, requested or encouraged.

This is the same gripe (public funding for abortion) that was expressed with regards to the Health Care legislation and is equally untrue, as I posted elsewhere. No public funds can be used for abortion services through the new legislation. These funds must come from private contributions from those covered and not via the tax-funded program. They called it "public funding" only because that person would give that money to the government to pay for it and that, supposedly, made it public funds (once it was int he government's coffer). But its NOT tax dollars that would be used.

 

[imaplanner]

Not only is Planned Parenthood prohibited from using public funds for abortions, abortion is only 3% of what they do. The majority is health screening, education and cancer prevention

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PPFA_Annual_Report_08-09-FINAL-12-10-10.pdf

This absolutely is an attack on women's health by the GOP. I don't understand how anyone can be such an a$$hat.

 

[Mastiff]

I don't understand how anyone can be such an a$$hat.

Really? Have you been listening to them? :s:

Here are a few concepts I'd add into the mix. We need a CCC and WPA again in this country. Too many able bodied people get paid to sit home. Use a small portion of the qualified unemployed to provide daycare and everyone goes to work. With all of the state shortfalls, I'm sure they can put able bodied people to work. (And do away with Davis-Bacon and BOLI, it does nothing but hurt government projects.) I know because of my budget, my PW crew is short. I could use able bodied men. You either work up to expectation, or you go home with no check.

Second. Want to do drugs that incapacitate you? Dandy... but not on my dime. Pass a piss test or get nothing. Same goes for women on welfare who keep having kids. Want a check? Get a Depovera shot. If you are too obese to work, you get institutionalized, not a sit-around-and-get-fatter allowance.

Wars. Can we really afford them? No. But, since people say it's in our "national interest" then we have to be there, right? Fine. Use Sun Tzu's model, and take the oil from Iraq and the mineral wealth from Afghanistan to pay the bill. There is no reason I should first pay for the bombs to wreck the place, then foot the bill to fix it... not to mention the troop costs. And while I'm on that topic, why the hell are we in Australia, Bahrain, Brazil, Bulgaria, Germany, Greenland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Netherlands, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar South Korea, Singapore, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom anyway? When the US military goes somewhere, they never leave. Meanwhile, they could be put to better use on the US-Mexico border.

Here are a few national fiscal ideas. One, a national sales tax on all non-essential items. Two, get rid of the draconian tax laws and just take what I owe out of my check and be done with it. (Sorry, no kid credits. You made 'em, you pay for 'em... I did.) Three, all taxing is done by the states, and eliminate the IRS to save on the redundancy. I'm sure the states are capable of taking the right amount and sending it to the GSA. It's also time to revisit our tariffs. The days of cheap Wal-Mart crap needs to end. If we want to use cheap labor for products, Mexico will work just fine, and the US corps that are there or go there can still pay US taxes.

Finally, and this is huge... quit making babies. Close off immigration and quit making so many kids! Want one? Great, get a license. Want two, get a special permit with a real good reason why... Want three? Adopt.

[/rant]

 

[TexanOkie]

Meanwhile, they could be put to better use on the US-Mexico border...

...It's also time to revisit our tariffs....

...Finally, and this is huge... quit making babies. Close off immigration and quit making so many kids! Want one? Great, get a license. Want two, get a special permit with a real good reason why... Want three? Adopt.

Wow. You're suggesting a militarized border, isolationist economic policies, and something even more stringent than China's "One Child" policy (they don't even require a license for 1 kid). I hope this rant was more anger on overload than it was your actual beliefs.

 

[Mastiff]

Wow. You're suggesting a militarized border, isolationist economic policies, and something even more stringent than China's "One Child" policy (they don't even require a license for 1 kid). I hope this rant was more anger on overload than it was your actual beliefs.

You asked how to fix it, that's how you fix it.

If you don't close off the southern border, you continue to have massive illegal immigration, meaning more strain on an already overburdened system. Got a better way to stop it? Let's hear it.

If you keep up the worldwide low tariff trade policies, we'll end up manufacturing nothing. Someone can always make it cheaper than we can because of little things like OSHA making safe work places, minimum wage requirements and other labor standards, and unionized labor. Most people will shop cheap before they shop American, even while claiming otherwise. Drive through WallyWorld and see how many US flags you see on the cars...

And the expanding population is a two-fold problem. First, every time two people have three or more children, you add people to a system that can't handle them. They are cutting education, job programs, and financial incentives to allow youth to become productive. Since, as you can plainly see, the middle class is shrinking, they'll have low end jobs or worse, turn to crime. .75% of the US population is incarcerated, and over 3% is locked up, or on probation or parole. The highest total in... the... world.

Why a license, you ask? Well, because if you can't properly raise a child (and I don't mean by any particular creed, religion, or that kind of thing), you don't need to have one. Can't pass? Take some parenting classes! Learn! But no, that's not what we're doing. Instead, we're literally... breeding ourselves stupid. It's been studied in depth, and the fertility rate is inversely proportional to intelligence. If you don't artificially change it, that's how it works.

These aren't things I believe. It's just truth borne out by research and statistics. Sure, the "fixes" I propose are radical and very harsh. But really, when some nitwit who listens to people dressed up in teabags would rather shut down the government because he can't eliminate enough social programs for the poor, you can't say I'm the crazy one. Face it, the GOP cares way more about a fetus than an actual child...

And while 40 billion might sound like a lot, the gross debt (not the deficit, that there is a bunch of bull) grew by 1.7 trillion in 2010. Using those numbers, Congress just shaved 2.3% off the amount our debt would go up just this year. Yeah, that makes me warm and fuzzy... Let's rearrange those deck chairs on the sinking ship some more!

 

[CJC]

I don't think I've ever seen any credible research or study implicating the number of children in this country as having any impact at all on our current on future budget problems. The vast majority of the problems are caused by having too few children over the past 40 years and into the foreseeable future to balance out the number of older folks.

There are concerns to be had about overpopulation on a global scale, but those concerns really have nothing to do with budgetary problems of the USA. If we're just talking about our budget, we'd be smartest to massively increase immigration (most importantly at the skilled level, but I'd like a pretty major increase in immigration at all levels) in order to provide a counterbalance to falling birth rates. The number of stories coming out of Silicon Valley recently about well-educated folks leaving the US due to visa headaches is particularly alarming.

As far as trade issues, after we get rid of our ridiculous farm subsidies, agricultural dumping, arcane patent system (especially with regard to software patents) and other restrictions that unfairly hurt poor nations, I'd be happy to talk about entirely free trade with any country that is willing to agree to some basic human rights, labor, and environmental laws (they don't need to be as strict as ours, but there needs to be something there), and MOST importantly, a floating and 100% convertible currency. I wouldn't have a problem with adding tariffs to those countries unwilling to follow those rules. The end result would probably be freer trade with most of Europe, Africa, South America, and Australia, and more restrictions on trade with Asia (both developing countries and developed countries).

I don't place higher value on manufacturing jobs as opposed to service jobs, the wages are higher mostly because of legacy issues. If we want higher wages on the low skill jobs that we have, that can be accomplished many other ways (increase the minimum wage, increase the ability for unions to form, etc) without clinging to the notion that somehow manufacturing jobs are a low skill job that deserve higher pay compared to many of the service jobs with a similar skill level.

 

[Mastiff]

I don't think I've ever seen any credible research or study implicating the number of children in this country as having any impact at all on our current on future budget problems. The vast majority of the problems are caused by having too few children over the past 40 years and into the foreseeable future to balance out the number of older folks.

That bubble is going to have to happen at some point no matter what. The US, which presently has a lot of open space, still can't sustain an ever increasing population. The research of which I spoke was simply in regards to the lowering intelligence of unchecked population growth, and I drew my conclusions from that data. It's undeniable that if the fertility rate and intelligence are inversely proportional in our environment, we become dumber on a whole with each generation. While this may sound very cold, and I'm not speaking about any individual, survival of the fittest, including those smart enough to make it, does not exist in our society.

As this happens, and we have generations losing the ability to learn, there is an ever widening gap between menial and skilled labor. Add to that the current desire of government not to train and educate those without means, and it's a recipe for disaster. That's just my opinion... your mileage may vary.

EDIT: Wow. I just lost the last 2/3ds of my reply. I'm too tired to start again. Perhaps later, because I do have some things to say, although I do agree with you in part.

 

[imaplanner]

If you don't close off the southern border, you continue to have massive illegal immigration, meaning more strain on an already overburdened system.
!

Its a problem, but way down on the list of major issues IMO. Most studies I have seen suggest that the economic benefit of illegal immigration is indeed a net negative, but not nearly by as much as people tend to think. For one, most illegals pay payroll taxes and receive little to no benefits from the payroll taxes (think SS, medicare). Illegals provide a substantial economic benefit to the US that is cancelled out by their costs, but its a lot closer to a net wash than people think.

 

[Mastiff]

Its a problem, but way down on the list of major issues IMO. Most studies I have seen suggest that the economic benefit of illegal immigration is indeed a net negative, but not nearly by as much as people tend to think. For one, most illegals pay payroll taxes and receive little to no benefits from the payroll taxes (think SS, medicare). Illegals provide a substantial economic benefit to the US that is cancelled out by their costs, but its a lot closer to a net wash than people think.

My point is it can't be sustained. Everything we do is based on growth... from the GNP to housing starts, it's all about continuing to grow. That won't end well. And actually, several studies indicate that the illegal immigration from Mexico has had a detrimental effect on the poor, particularly with African-Americans. Of course it'll help the upper middle class and wealthy, cheap labor does that...

 

[CJC]

I'm not really sure what you're arguing should be done then - are you saying that we're past the point of fixing anything, so we might as well just give up? Take everyone's rights away now simply to further human life for a few more centuries? Color me confused. The current setup of global trade/politics is not even that old, and certainly not something that is set in stone as something that must continue until the world devolves into some great dystopia.

In my mind, we've got some short term (meaning in my lifetime) issues with the way that the current global and domestic economy is set up, and these are things that we should and can work to fix, while still allowing the most possible people to simply enjoy life (civil liberties and all that jazz ).

Larger issues of global overpopulation, disease, etc, are fixed in large part by allowing the smartest and most innovative people the opportunities to study these problems and look for fixes (hence easier movement of smart folks to the areas of the world with the best facilities, most resources, etc). Many of the problems that were thought to be insurmountable even just 50 years ago have been solved, let alone what were thought of as the major problems of the world 500 years ago.

 

[Mastiff]

I'm not really sure what you're arguing should be done then - are you saying that we're past the point of fixing anything, so we might as well just give up? Take everyone's rights away now simply to further human life for a few more centuries? Color me confused. The current setup of global trade/politics is not even that old, and certainly not something that is set in stone as something that must continue until the world devolves into some great dystopia.

In my mind, we've got some short term (meaning in my lifetime) issues with the way that the current global and domestic economy is set up, and these are things that we should and can work to fix, while still allowing the most possible people to simply enjoy life (civil liberties and all that jazz ).

Larger issues of global overpopulation, disease, etc, are fixed in large part by allowing the smartest and most innovative people the opportunities to study these problems and look for fixes (hence easier movement of smart folks to the areas of the world with the best facilities, most resources, etc). Many of the problems that were thought to be insurmountable even just 50 years ago have been solved, let alone what were thought of as the major problems of the world 500 years ago.

What I'm saying is that the people who actually have the ability to fix things, and we're not them, for the most part do not wish to do it. In fact, they seem to thrive and profit from chaos, so they either don't stop it or encourage it. While people lost their homes, bankers made millions. As they change health care, pharma and insurance will tag us for a bundle. Iraq wasn't about WMDs or freedom, it was about making money. That Halliburton windfall comes out of middle class pockets.

The question posed was how to fix the economy. Well, obviously the real number one step is to remove the people I just mentioned... but I assumed we were playing king for a day (year). I also assumed it was just the US, and not the global economy, and that's how I formed my opinion. It boils down to this. Everyone, and I mean all of us, would have to take a bite of the giant shit sandwich we've allowed to be created for us. And, as cold as it might seem, we'd have to tell the rest of the world to get along without us while we get our house in order. Once you realize we have created an empire, and not a country, you can see what happens to them historically. They fall... and usually go bankrupt in the process.

Sorry to be such a purveyor of gloom and doom, but 40 billion doesn't scratch the surface, and cuts the things we need. If it weren't so sad, I'd be laughing at the teabagger folks. They're angry, and rightfully so, but instead of being pissed at the right things (no pun intended), they are actually helping the people who want to screw them over. I'll say it one more time... while we allow ourselves to be divided over social issues (abortion, homosexuality, guns, religion) the 1%ers empty our pockets.

 

[CJC]

^Fair enough, I'm more of an optimist than you, I suppose

As far as empires falling, it may sound trite, but we really are different than other past empires. Our wealth and resources are overwhelmingly within our own borders (compared to past empires), and the wealth and resources within those borders is far greater than any other past empire (compared to the rest of the world). It also helps that we operate entirely on a non-resource based currency - if all hell were to break loose, we could always reissue the currency (and this is before we even discuss the fact that most of our debt is still internal) and start over, and we'd still be one of the richest countries in the world - and because we hold many resources that other countries need, they'd simply have to deal with us one way or another. It's easy to forget just how good our piece of real estate is compared to what else is out there.

It's also easy to forget that living standards for even our lowest classes are still significantly higher than they were 40 years ago (or whatever other random date assigned as our "peak"). As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I do have concerns about our rising income inequality and falling income mobility, but that's simply when we're talking about what would be ideal or comparing ourselves to other countries at our level of wealth or above.

 

[Cismontane]

As far as empires falling, it may sound trite, but we really are different than other past empires. Our wealth and resources are overwhelmingly within our own borders

umm.. except for the Dutch and British ones (and a few other, far less successful European examples), aren't most historical empires land-based and self-contained with respect to wealth and resources? Russia comes to mind, China, Rome, etc.,etc.

 

[CJC]

umm.. except for the Dutch and British ones (and a few other, far less successful European examples), aren't most historical empires land-based and self-contained with respect to wealth and resources? Russia comes to mind, China, Rome, etc.,etc.

I'm talking about the "home" borders. At the height of both the Dutch and British Empires, the vast, vast, vast majority of wealth and resources of each empire was outside of the British Isles and Europe.

China is a debatable one I suppose, but I would count Russia and Rome as very much in the same vein as the British and Dutch. If the US was just the original 13 states with a bunch of vassal states spread across the rest of the continent, then I'd see some kind of comparison, but that's not the case by any stretch.

 

[TexanOkie]

umm.. except for the Dutch and British ones (and a few other, far less successful European examples), aren't most historical empires land-based and self-contained with respect to wealth and resources? Russia comes to mind, China, Rome, etc.,etc.

I think what CJC was trying to get at is that previous empires had to expand their reach greatly to obtain resources to sustain themselves. The British and the Dutch both had to, as you pointed out. The Russian, Chinese, and Roman empires all still had to expand greatly to take advantage of resources, even if they weren't near as spread out as the Dutch and British (partly due to the time periods in which they occurred - Rome was Rome only, not the entire Italian peninsula; Russia expanded eastward across the Urals and then the Siberian plain to the Pacific Ocean; China from along the Yellow River basin south and west to the Yangtze basin and Tibet. The United States is in the relatively rare situation that we have such a wealth of resources within our existing limits - even if our territories were restricted to the 50 states, we still have an extremely high variety and amount of natural resources that other nations will need to work with us to obtain if we ever did fall away some in terms of worldwide influence.

 

[boiker]

The United States is in the relatively rare situation that we have such a wealth of resources within our existing limits - even if our territories were restricted to the 50 states, we still have an extremely high variety and amount of natural resources that other nations will need to work with us to obtain if we ever did fall away some in terms of worldwide influence.

The most important resource, oil, is expensive to extract within our borders. Massive quantities are available but locked in oil sands and oil shales. Our expansive empire protects other resources we don't have such as cheap labor for manufacturing and rare-earth materials. If the empire collapses or degrades, we could easily replace the labor with our more expensive labor, but energy costs would rise and our ability to produce advanced electronics and technology would be severely hampered without access to rare-earth materials.

 

[Cismontane]

Not sure I'd agree exactly. The US (and territorial predecessors) may have an abundant supply of resources and arable land, but that's very much as a result of its past imperial expansion westward and southward... just as was the case with Rome (securing grain production areas was a large part of the justification for territorial expansion), Chinese (westward/northward after the initial ancient period of imperial consolidation), Russia (eastward and southweard), and so forth. The US very much followed the traditional land-based model of expansion.... where the main resistance was nomadic cultures with a huge technology differential (ditto with China and Rome, Russia had the unique luxury of expanding eastward into largely uninhabited tundra). Ming and early Ch'in Chinese expansion from the 14th through 17th/early 18th centuries followed the US model in some respects, with the key exception that we didn't marry off the daughters of leading WASP families in Boston and Philly to the Native American chiefs to try to buy them off from burning down our frontier settlements (the Ming tried this tactic a few times.. usually without lasting success). Not sure how happy the Astor daughters would've been living in yurts.

 

[CJC]

The most important resource, oil, is expensive to extract within our borders. Massive quantities are available but locked in oil sands and oil shales. Our expansive empire protects other resources we don't have such as cheap labor for manufacturing and rare-earth materials. If the empire collapses or degrades, we could easily replace the labor with our more expensive labor, but energy costs would rise and our ability to produce advanced electronics and technology would be severely hampered without access to rare-earth materials.

You're largely talking about entirely political constructs. We have vast quantities of oil, natural gas, and coal that could be used if there was ever a need to - we simply have current ways of acquiring oil that are cheaper (at least on the surface) in economic and environmental ways. That doesn't change the actual global distribution of oil, gas, or coal.

The US has the second largest cache of easily extractable rare earths (the only other country aside from the US and China with large reserves is Australia) - it's just a similar situation to that with energy - we don't want the environmental problems that go along with mining them in our country, and it's been easier to close our eyes to environmental problems in China and buy from them. That is changing slowly anyway with companies like Molycorp beginning to ramp up US production again.

Not sure I'd agree exactly. The US (and territorial predecessors) may have an abundant supply of resources and arable land, but that's very much as a result of its past imperial expansion westward and southward... just as was the case with Rome (securing grain production areas was a large part of the justification for territorial expansion), Chinese (westward/northward after the initial ancient period of imperial consolidation), Russia (eastward and southweard), and so forth. The US very much followed the traditional land-based model of expansion.... where the main resistance was nomadic cultures with a huge technology differential (ditto with China and Rome, Russia had the unique luxury of expanding eastward into largely uninhabited tundra). Ming and early Ch'in Chinese expansion from the 14th through 17th/early 18th centuries followed the US model in some respects, with the key exception that we didn't marry off the daughters of leading WASP families in Boston and Philly to the Native American chiefs to try to buy them off from burning down our frontier settlements (the Ming tried this tactic a few times.. usually without lasting success). Not sure how happy the Astor daughters would've been living in yurts.

I think the major difference is that the US is pretty homogeneous culturally compared to those other places at the height of their empire. There were large ethnic issues in each of those other places - again, at the height of their empire. I'm not arguing that we may have conquered the current land area through similar means, but the height of our empire is now, and there's no geographic region within our borders that is aching to leave or would be an easy split due to historic ethnic/cultural ties at this point, like that that clearly existed with most earlier empires at their height (the pre-Bolshevik Russian Empire was similar to the US in that way, but certainly not the Soviet Empire).

 

[Cismontane]

at the height of their empire. I'm not arguing that we may have conquered the current land area through similar means, but the height of our empire is now, and there's no geographic region within our borders that is aching to leave or would be an easy split due to historic ethnic/cultural ties at this point, like that that clearly existed with most earlier empires at their height (the pre-Bolshevik Russian Empire was similar to the US in that way, but certainly not the Soviet Empire).

I think the same thing may be said of any empire since the end of the 19th century.. when all big existing empires had pretty much expanded (in land mass) to their territorial limits, running into other political territories... although sometimes, as was the case with Brazil and Russia, internationally recognized claims to territory probably exceeded their ability to hold that territory effectively, at the time it was first claimed... ditto with China on Tibet before the "re-invasion" in 1949/50, and even some parts of the Southwestern US which remained in technical contention - with warlords mostly, until the early 1920s (hence President Wilson's War Plan Green to"pacify" the Frontera Norte in 1917.. which thank goodness was never carried out due to the onset of World War I). They justified War Plan Green on the basis of past disputes about where the 1848 treaty line was drawn and what it meant... and the fact that the Magonists and Wobblies were openly attacking north of the Rio Grande and well above the treaty line in California and Arizona as well, creating a vast area of internal lawlessness for the US. Similarly, China had a recognized claim to Tibet backed by long intervals of actual governance going back to the 14th century and a more debateable claim to Arunachal substantiated by the McMahon line (more British baggage), and nobody would've really disputed Russia's claim to the Amur dating back its annexation of it from China (by cession) in 1858... These claims were there but simply not consolidated until much later (1937 for Amur and 1950 for Tibet).

In fact, it can be argued that the later Indian Wars, the anti-bandit (warlord) campaign in Texas, NM and AZ in the 1910s, and the thankfully abortive War Plan Green were basically the same in both intent and function as China's re-pacification of Tibet and Russia's re-pacification of the Amur and several other eastern oblasts. In fact, the more aggressive components of the US War Plan Green (such as annexing territories and the gateway cities on the South Bank of the Rio Grande) would've been the equivalent of China crossing the border and seizing Nepal and Arunachal in India on the justification of older territorial mandates and the alleged threat of warlords and banditry... which I'm sure China has considered doing once or twice since than, and some factions in the US probably regret not having done the same to Mexico in 1917.

The "height" of Russia's empire was well into its post-limit period, unless you count the mid-20th century pacifications. China's land-based "height" - until now - was probably the late Ming/early Ch'in, also well after its territorial expansion, it's maritime height was somewhat earlier (middle Ming,but that's not what we're talking about)... it then went into a 250 year recession. In fact, our own territorial expansion continued with the later western US territorial pacifications until the eve of the beginning of the period of our peak expansionist military power right after World War II, at least relatively speaking. Brazil arguably hasn't quite found its peak yet.. or is just emerging as a power, yet it had clearly reached its territorial limit by the 1960s. China seems bound to re-emerge as the hegemon at the some point in the next several decades, a full 250 years after its last big period of military expansion (again excepting its mid-20th century frontier pacification campaigns). It may pick up some more territories, such as a scenario where Russia returns the Amur, but that's pretty iffy, although not impossible (in 2008, for example, Russia quietly returned to China some 200 square miles of land near the city of Khabarovsk). Then again, with the Frontera Norte bound for war and a massive collapse, we could conceivably pick up some territories too over the next 50 years (anyone want Sonora as a state?).

As for losing territories over the next, say 100 years, Russia is at risk of losing territories unless it starts exercising more effective governance in its southern and eastern oblasts (anyone want to guess that much of the Northern Caucusus might want to leave?), and Siberia is already hedging its bets now that somebody else wants its goods. China is probably unlikely to lose any territories or to split apart on geographic lines, with the only territory possibly under contention being northwestern Xinjiang, but China will not give it up under any reasonably foreseeable scenario. The government in China may eventually fall or change, but it's territory is likely going to remain integral. Ditto for Brazil. The US will probably hold the territories it has now, although this is less of a certainty than it was before. I could imagine a future scenario where California and Cascadia might bid for more autonomy... or where Greater Texas might want the same. Unless the center starts behaving more sensibly from a fiscal perspective, either scenario and probably a few others are outside possibilities, I hate to say.

I don't see the difference vis-a-vis the other big land-based empires, frankly.

 

[wahday]

In fact, it can be argued that the later Indian Wars, the anti-bandit (warlord) campaign in Texas, NM and AZ in the 1910s, and the thankfully abortive War Plan Green were basically the same in both intent and function as China's re-pacification of Tibet and Russia's re-pacification of the Amur and several other eastern oblasts. In fact, the more aggressive components of the US War Plan Green (such as annexing territories and the gateway cities on the South Bank of the Rio Grande) would've been the equivalent of China crossing the border and seizing Nepal and Arunachal in India on the justification of older territorial mandates and the alleged threat of warlords and banditry... which I'm sure China has considered doing once or twice since than, and some factions in the US probably regret not having done the same to Mexico in 1917.

Off-Topic, though interesting topic...
This was an interesting read, but as a New Mexico resident, I found the above to be a little confusing. There were only three engagements of US troops against Native forces in New Mexico, Arizona and Texas between 1898 and 1918 that I am aware of. One of them was just mobilizing US Cavalry to Fort Wingate for a Navajo uprising that never occurred. New Mexico became a US Territory in 1850 and a state in 1912. Arizona became a territory in 1863 (had been part of NM Territory from 1850) and also a state in 1912. In both areas, the efforts to "pacify" the region started much earlier - the Kearny Code, for example (commonly viewed as instituting "law and order" in NM Territory) was codified in 1846 during the Mexican-American War (New Mexico was part of independent Mexico from 1821 to 1850, but occupied by US forces in 1846). I have never heard any historian here refer to the anti-bandit campaign you mention during this timeframe. Even Billy the Kid was dead by 1881...

 

[Cismontane]

Off-Topic, though interesting topic...
This was an interesting read, but as a New Mexico resident, ...

There were two campaigns, one in 1911/1912 (under President Taft) and another in 1916/17 (under Wilson). The first action was used to protect American interests during the Mexican Revolution and prevent cross border raids. Remember, the Magonist revolt, backed by International Workers of the World, scared American elites sh*******... you had American socialists and anarchists openly making speaches in Tijuana and Juarez.. and in Downtown San Diego, and the IWW physically held Tijuana for 3 months, until US troops dislodged them. One of my ancestors wrote that they used to hang out outside a farmstead in Otay and watch the city burn across the line... as the army basically massacred the revolutionaries. Then in 1916, General Pershing conducted a campaign in Northern Mexico against Pancho Villa and other banditos in 1916-1917, after Pancho Villa attacked Columbus, NM in your state. We also bombarded the Port of Veracruz, just because... The full War Plan was never implemented (thank goodness).. would've involved seizing the southern bank of the Rio Grande and the gateway towns (and Chihuahua) permanently and occupying much of the rest of the country temporarily.. including removing President Carvajal from power (since he was viewed as being complicit with Pancho Villa). This was also the first petro-war.. one agenda for War Plan Green was to seize oil fields. Interestingly, Pershing hung out in Northern Mexico for a full 9 months as an occupier during the second campaign. I too had ancestors on both sides of the BCN/CA border at the time.. only reason I know about the lore.

 

[CJC]

As for losing territories over the next, say 100 years, Russia is at risk of losing territories unless it starts exercising more effective governance in its southern and eastern oblasts (anyone want to guess that much of the Northern Caucusus might want to leave?), and Siberia is already hedging its bets now that somebody else wants its goods. China is probably unlikely to lose any territories or to split apart on geographic lines, with the only territory possibly under contention being northwestern Xinjiang, but China will not give it up under any reasonably foreseeable scenario. The government in China may eventually fall or change, but it's territory is likely going to remain integral. Ditto for Brazil. The US will probably hold the territories it has now, although this is less of a certainty than it was before. I could imagine a future scenario where California and Cascadia might bid for more autonomy... or where Greater Texas might want the same. Unless the center starts behaving more sensibly from a fiscal perspective, either scenario and probably a few others are outside possibilities, I hate to say.

I don't see the difference vis-a-vis the other big land-based empires, frankly.

The difference is that there are historical, cultural, ethnic, and religious reasons for the northern Caucasus area to want to split from Russia. There isn't the social cohesion between different territories in Russia and China that there is between different states in the US because relative to the US, there is almost no migration to or from these areas - internal or external.

The talk of things like Cascadia or Greater Texas fails to take into account that the majority of the people living in these areas weren't even born there. I went to grad school in Barcelona, and it was fascinating to me to see how parochial the concerns of the average Catalonian were compared to the average Texan or Californian or whatever. A large percentage of my classmates could trace their family lineage in Barcelona back centuries - compare this to my high school class, where more than half the class no longer lives in the same state that they went to high school in, let alone where their parents or grandparents grew up.

This type of mobility (and especially inter-generational mobility) is a 20th century - and largely American (with it also happening in Canada and Australia) - phenomenon. We often hear about the negatives of this (less of a sense of place, etc) along with the positives (labor mobility), but rarely about what it does to tie the country as a whole together more tightly than other countries. Something like Cascadia breaking away might sound nice to some folks that have lived in Oregon or Washington their whole lives, but sounds crazy to a new immigrant from India, the young transplant fresh out of school from Texas, or the newly retired couple from California spending their twilight years in Bend.

In my experience, there's just very little tying together folks from one region that is more prominent than the greater American bind, and this seems even more stark when you travel to other countries (including China and Brazil). There are ethnicity-based ties, religion-based ties, and class-based ties in the US, but these are primarily held across the country, not region-to-region (as they are in China and Brazil in many ways, for example). Certainly this could change in the future, but it would really take some time for folks of similar intent and beliefs to congregate in specific regions, and we would probably need to see an end or major slowing down of international immigration.

 

[imaplanner]

The most important resource, oil, is expensive to extract within our borders. Massive quantities are available but locked in oil sands and oil shales. Our expansive empire protects other resources we don't have such as cheap labor for manufacturing and rare-earth materials. If the empire collapses or degrades, we could easily replace the labor with our more expensive labor, but energy costs would rise and our ability to produce advanced electronics and technology would be severely hampered without access to rare-earth materials.

Post more dude!

 

[Cismontane]

(including China and Brazil)

Having worked in both countries on projects and travelled extensively in the former too, I have to disagree. China isn't a veritable melting pot, of course, but the government has made sure that the Han are overwhelming majorities in all regions. Thus even "minority" regions like Tibet and Yunnan are 70%+ Han now. China also has extremely high mobility across the regions.. higher the US by the numbers. The one vast "unmeltable" minority are the Hui, but the Hui are historically distributed all over the country.. thus, no persuasive regional bias there... and with no Hui separatist movement at all, the government has taken to celebrating that limited amount of diversity instead of suppressing it. The only close call, again, is Xinjiang (about 1/3rd each Han, Hui and Uzbek/Turkish), but I'm sure the Communist government is working rapidly (with characteristic ruthlessness) to change that. Also, a common education system that forces mobility (unlike our own, which limits it through the mechanism of state colleges) is melding the country together quite nicely. I strongly disagree on Brazil... even more so than I do on China. Over the last 2 decades, a strong Brazilian national identity, cutting across the 3 color line, has emerged.. much stronger than I get a sense about American identity. The divides there aren't regional, but rather racial, and the races are all represented albeit in varying proportions throughout the country.. in that once sense Brazil is no different than the US, albeit at an earlier stage of development. In some respects, Brazil is more of a melting pot than the US is today... Brazil's mobility cuts across all strata (those famous urban slums are in-migrant people from other regions, remember...). Brazil also still has a frontier of sorts, in the Amazon, and that attracts people looking for opportunity from around the country.

The real question for the US isn't that that people move around. Mobility is high .. although generally intra-regional (at least compared to China... with its curious cross-regional mobility). But, you're right people - especially elites and the highly trained - move around between the big cities (if not the hinterland). But many of these people - including myself - still consider one particular region home. If trouble comes, many people will simply "go home." Confession: most of the time, I don't actually work in California, but I am Californian... descended from a long line of Californians. I'll happily fight for California.. but not for anywhere else in the US. I think many people are of the same mind. These identity issues keep regional identities (especially outside a small elite) very sharp, by world standards. If there weren't such differences, the culture wars would not nearly be as sharp or as nasty as they are... in fact, those wars of ideology are increasingly regional in character, as people (again outside of a smal sliver of elites) tend to migrate to where they can avoid things like discrimination, maximize opportunities, and align political interests. These conflicts used to be as much as an urban-rural divide in decades past, but with rural largely gone, that distinction hardly matters anymore (much has been made of Cailfornia's conservative Central Valley to illustrate this principle.. but rub a Central Valley conservative and you get something very different than a Southeastern US conservative, as the last couple statewide elections clearly showed.

I remember a more integrated country as late as the 80s and early 90s. Now, Bostonians and New Englanders (especially after Red Sox games) have a hard time accepting that Texas and Mississippi are part of the same country. When I was in that city for grad school, I was pretty shocked at how extreme, parochial - and ignorant - on the street views could be. I did a three week trek through rural Alabama, SW Georgia and Mississippi right before grad school started for me in MA - just because I'd never really visited the SE.. and enjoyed it thoroughly, but the reactions I got from Bostonians (well.. Bostonians not actually at Harvard, MIT or other elite schools.. who are presumably more sophisticated about such things) was horror. Why would you do that? From the way they were talking, I may as well as lived Deliverance, and took my life into my own hands.... In Cali, my parents - who are well-educated, successful people, just thought I was insane.. and this from parents who had no problem that I've travelled to 59 foreign countries over my career. To them, the rural south is more foreign than any of the 59.. well, maybe not Myanmar and Cambodia and the Georgian Republic, but you get the point. Of course, I doubt they have even seen the south beyond Hartsfield Airport.

Things are changing, and changing quickly.. and not necessarily for the better. In 50 to 100 years, unless things reverse themselves, I can see real fractures starting to emerge... maybe less. As a Californio, I can tell you that there IS and always has been vague separatist sentiment in the hinterland, and it extends acrosss the political spectrum. It probably can't be actioned, because of the city folks.. but those out of state, elite city folk don't bother to vote much either... anyway it is there. The reason such regional sentiment is muted is because so far the US as a whole remains integral and the US hasn't, to date, given much reason to actualize it. If present fractures continue unchecked, reason will eventually come.

 

[ofos]

I rarely post in this or any other political thread but I'd like to applaud this recent trend to intelligent discourse rather than view bashing and borderline character assassination. It's been very interesting. Keep up the good work!

 

[boiker]

You're largely talking about entirely political constructs. We have vast quantities of oil, natural gas, and coal that could be used if there was ever a need to - we simply have current ways of acquiring oil that are cheaper (at least on the surface) in economic and environmental ways. That doesn't change the actual global distribution of oil, gas, or coal.

I think we have to talk in political constructs. Economics and Politics are hopelessly intertwined. I also believe the cheap cost of oil acquisition has been hidden by externalized costs. The last 20 years of war and military action in the middle east is a substantial and indirect cost that isn't built in to the ongoing price of a barrel of oil. In a way, the cost of foreign oil extraction has been subsidized by the public.

The US has the second largest cache of easily extractable rare earths (the only other country aside from the US and China with large reserves is Australia) - it's just a similar situation to that with energy - we don't want the environmental problems that go along with mining them in our country, and it's been easier to close our eyes to environmental problems in China and buy from them. That is changing slowly anyway with companies like Molycorp beginning to ramp up US production again.

Here's a CRS report about rare-earth materials. Essentially, we have a decent reserve available to us within our border but absolutely no infrastructure to mine and process. We, and the rest of the world, is hopelessly dependent on rare earths. Afghanistan reportedly has $89 billion worth of rare-earths ripe for the taking. If economics are the concern, developing rare-earth mines and processing there would be cheaper than China. Of course, the infrastructure is missing, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of the "nation building" monies from the DoD be used to build the infrastructure necessary to extract rare-earths in Afghanistan. MNCs would then secure favorable long-term leases on US built infrastructure in a cheap, undeveloped country.

We have the resources in the USA, the pressure and almost robotic drive that business has to lower costs has made the USA military the strong-arm of the corporate world. The evidence is circumstantial (however compelling): Corporations see a unstable area that is ripe for the picking, they employ the USA to stabilize, develop infrastructure and make economic development/exploitation possible.

 

[wahday]

Great post, Boiker. I especially agree about the subsidized cost of petroleum products. If we paid the real cost, I'm sure the drive to develop additional and varied fuel types would increase dramatically. But as long as fuel is cheap, the machine keeps trucking ahead as it has been.

Its interesting to see the ways that the US intervenes in other regions of the world to, at least in part, secure or open up new economic interests (those deemed to be in the "national interest") and how that contrasts with China. China's involvement has managed to almost completely avoid any involvement in domestic politics in any of the countries where they are trying to gain a foothold (mainly for natural resources and to open new markets for goods). These deals often involve trades of specialized services for stakes in things like oil revenues. When I was in Uganda (with large oil reserves in the north and in the south and west) China was very active in building roads - and they built some very nice ones. They have done similar things in Zimbabwe and other countries that the US won't engage with because there is an image of implicit endorsement of abusive regimes we don't want to associate with. Not so with China. It seems they could really care less about "responsible government" and are instead focused almost exclusively on purely economic engagement. I say almost because there is, of course, North Korea where they have a very strong political interest as well, though it has nothing to do with responsible government or human rights.

 

[CJC]

To be clear, I was only responding to boiker's comments within the context of the conversation about a potential end or "bankruptcy" of an American empire, not about what we should do now (and I do not think that we are even remotely close to the end of an American empire).

As discussed on the past page, I'm very much in agreement with the notion that oil prices are artificially low, with the largest subsidy coming from foreign policy and military interventions. That's why I strongly support a geopolitical-based carbon tax (meaning a higher tax on oil-based carbon over coal or biomass or whatever-based carbon), which would be a way to surface those costs to American consumers, while simultaneously encouraging innovation and investment in other energy sources and (hopefully) decreasing our reliance on oil in general.

The rare-earths issue is entirely a political issue, IMO, because we're unwilling or able to talk about environmental issues with countries such as China while using actual financial teeth, but all too quick to shut down domestic production (of anything) because of environmental concerns. I'm pretty skeptical of any corporation/rich person plan at work here, it just seems like what would logically happen - people are mostly concerned about the environment that they can see, and rarely think about unintended side effects.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

We have the resources in the USA, the pressure and almost robotic drive that business has to lower costs has made the USA military the strong-arm of the corporate world. The evidence is circumstantial (however compelling): Corporations see a unstable area that is ripe for the picking, they employ the USA to stabilize, develop infrastructure and make economic development/exploitation possible.

I guess Eisenhower was right, beware the military/industrial complex.

I think the American empire has been different than the rest because we have not been in the getting more land game. Last time we got more land via a war with a foreign county was the Spanish-American when we got the Phillipines, Cuba and Puetro Rico. We cut the Phillipines and Cuba free eventually.

However, unlike China, we have not been afraid to the use the miltary for ensure access to resouces. We may have wrapped in the religious/political/political science bs, but they were about ensuring access to resources. I alos think that if put the the test. China would not be afraid to send in the troops in need be.

We've also been big into sphere of influence. The Monroe Doctrine is an example of this.

As a nation, we were founded on two key principal-religious freedom and commerce. After all, the British established colonies here to make money. Both ideas continue to drive us as a nation and are our core principles. Everything else is just window dressing.

 

[biscuit]

Not so with China. It seems they could really care less about "responsible government" and are instead focused almost exclusively on purely economic engagement. I say almost because there is, of course, North Korea where they have a very strong political interest as well, though it has nothing to do with responsible government or human rights.

I think China's interest in propping-up North Korea has changed significantly in the past 25 years or so. It's now all about maintaining stability, and preventing millions of starving North Koreans from spilling over the border. China seems to care little for political ideology anymore. Mao is distant past to many, and the Communists Party is just the name of framework left to maintain single party rule and hegemony within China. There is very little that is communist about modern China.

However, unlike China, we have not been afraid to the use the miltary for ensure access to resouces. We may have wrapped in the religious/political/political science bs, but they were about ensuring access to resources. I alos think that if put the the test. China would not be afraid to send in the troops in need be.

China doesn't need to send armies into far flung parts of the world -Not that they could if they wanted to. It's a lot easier economically occupy country for its resources its resources than it is to pay for a world-wide reaching military capable of invading and occupying. Throwing big money for infrastructure projects in places like Angola and Uganda also helps win the hearts and minds part of the we seem to fail at.

Also, China doesn't use their military as a giant jobs program like we do here in the US. The US military budget seems to have more to do with funneling money to defense contractors and the jobs they provide in various congressional districts than it does with keeping the country safe.

 

[imaplanner]

I I think the American empire has been different than the rest because we have not been in the getting more land game. .

I disagree to an extent. We may not be taking the land and annexing it, but we are controlling the land and the populations and the resources. And in a global economy that's what really matters. For most purposes, we control all of Iraq and all of Afganistan, and maybe soon all of Libya. We also basically control most of some other little countries as well.

 

[Gotta Speakup]

I

Throwing big money for infrastructure projects in places like Angola and Uganda also helps win the hearts and minds part of the we seem to fail at.

Somehow, decades of large scale US aid to other countries didn't win us a lot of hearts and minds.

 

[wahday]

Here is a link to a great article about China's growing international role. Its an article from 2007, but much of what is discussed resonates with this discussion.

This quote is rather telling regarding how China uses its military might to protect international interests. They have and will use their military to protect economic investments, it would seem, but not to take on governments directly or get embroiled in domestic politics. Its a defensive posture, but a mighty one, and almost operates akin to a private corporate army. Contrast that with the comparatively meager presence they have as part of UN peacekeeping efforts which don't deal as directly economic interests.

A Chinese state-owned company owns 40% of the oil concession in the south of Sudan, and there are reportedly 4,000 Chinese troops there protecting Beijing's oil interests. (By contrast, despite the noise that China made when one of its soldiers was killed by an Israeli air strike on a U.N. post in Lebanon last summer, there are only 1,400 Chinese troops serving in all U.N. peacekeeping missions worldwide.)

China could have taken the stance of siding with the Sudanese government against the rebels in the south to protect their oil interests, selling them arms and training their military. Instead, they stayed out of that aspect and simply positioned their own military to protect drilling sites and refineries.

 

[btrage]

War with China!!!!

 

[wahday]

Somehow, decades of large scale US aid to other countries didn't win us a lot of hearts and minds.

I can't speak for Angola, but I did spend a year and a half in Uganda and I can tell you that the US is seen in a much more positive light than China. Uganda, especially when I was there (6 years after the civil war had ended and as a constitution was being drafted) was deeply invested in democracy and looked to the US for a great deal of guidance. We have also trained aspects of their military, provided military equipment and provided asylum (though not as much as Great Britain Canada) for those fleeing turmoil since independence. I was also there during the 1992 US presidential elections and Ugandans were CRAZY for info on the process. I went to an event at the US Information Service which was screening a debate. It was supposed to happen in a big hall, but so many people showed up, they moved it outside and projected it on a screen. It was so packed I still barely saw any of it.

Don't underestimate the value of these investments - we still have a lot of friends around the world. When people learned I was American and not British, for example, I became instantly more popular. The fair number of Chinese living in Kampala at that time, by contrast, did not interact much with the Ugandan population and were viewed with some skepticism (though people freely admitted they were very hard working and built amazing roads). Indeed, I met a lot of people from other parts of the world when I was there, but none of them were Chinese.

 

[Mastiff]

War with China!!!!

Jed: Well, who is on our side?
Col. Tanner: Six hundred million screaming Chinamen.
Darryl: Last I heard, there were a billion screaming Chinamen.
Col. Tanner: There were.

...........

 

[imaplanner]

War with China!!!!

Once we find a way to turn rice and pointy hats into an expensive and profitable fuel source.

 

[ofos]

Once we find a way to turn rice and pointy hats into an expensive and profitable fuel source.

I highly recommend that everyone read "The Ugly American" by Eugene Burdick and William Lederer, published in 1958 or, at the very least, find the movie by the same name starring Marlon Brando from 1963.

 

[Maister]

[ot]Alas. It was great while it lasted.(sigh)[/ot]