A recent Thread brought up discussions regarding U.S. Economics in regards to other Countries. The Thread "Would you live in the US?" was created by Challenger78:http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=70841 Those discussions brought up many questions in my mind and prompted this Thread. Instead of stating my opinions and having argumentative responses to those opinions I have decided to share my questions and thoughts and ask for input. There are many subjects for discussion. Note, that I believe all the topics that I list are inseparably connected and though they COULD all be posted as separate threads I believe that coherency would be lost. I look forward to responses from those living in the U.S. and especially from those living in other countries. Survival of the U.S. as a superpower, is it imperative to Global stability? What is the U.S. role as International "peace keeper" and what is the global implications. Can the U.S. stay a super power if the US dollar enters into permanent decline? Assuming the U.S. dollar does enter into a permanent decline, how will this effect the world economy considering that the U.S. represents the most important Reserve Currency in the world? Why is the U.S. borrowing heavily on international capital markets, instead of lending? Has the U.S. been stockpiling reserves in an effort to strengthen export competitiveness by weakening it's own currency in order to encourage an influx of capital by purchasing commodities at a cheaper rate? Currently the U.S. is making huge leaps in it's exports to forestall economic decline. Thus far this is working, however is it to late to keep the rest of the world interested in partnering with the U.S. dollar? Considering the dollar's steady depreciation against the euro, does the U.S want a puppet government in Iraq just to revert back to a dollar standard, especially from Iran who is actively discussing a switch to euros for its oil? Russia, China, the UK and the USA are all involved with current political endeavours in the Mideast. The U.S. is again posed for a war in that part of the world. Could we be facing world conflict given the global political involvement and the fact that OPEC is leaning toward the euro as an oil transaction currency standard? Will the UK side with China, Russia, Iraq and Iran in order to replace the U.S. as the "prime" super power? Assuming that they do, does the UK have the infrastructure to lead the world into a peaceful cooperation? Would the U.S. step down from power without a war? Assuming they do step down and take it on the chin what role would the U.S. play given the change in power, if any? Will this prompt a larger conflict with the super powers or Will it be kept strictly in a political venue? Can the world stage be bought and controlled via a purely political economic standpoint or will force enter into the equation? Well, for now that should cover my thoughts. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If it does, which I don't think it will, the other countries America deals with trading wise will be just as hurt or even more hurt.
do you mean you don't think the U.S. will stay a super power or do you mean that you don't think that the U.S. dollar will enter into a permanent decline?
It won't go into a permanent decline because America trades with everyone and if its currency loses to much value over a very long time their debts won't ever get paid off.
''Instead of stating my opinions and having argumentative responses to those opinions I have decided to share my questions and thoughts and ask for input.'' I do beleive the old saying is, ''question everything.'' So you are well within your rights to do so. Anyone who questions this, are plain stupid. ''Assuming the U.S. dollar does enter into a permanent decline, how will this effect the world economy considering that the U.S. represents the most important Reserve Currency in the world? Why is the U.S. borrowing heavily on international capital markets, instead of lending? Has the U.S. been stockpiling reserves in an effort to strengthen export competitiveness by weakening it's own currency in order to encourage an influx of capital by purchasing commodities at a cheaper rate? Currently the U.S. is making huge leaps in it's exports to forestall economic decline. Thus far this is working, however is it to late to keep the rest of the world interested in partnering with the U.S. dollar? Considering the dollar's steady depreciation against the euro, does the U.S want a puppet government in Iraq just to revert back to a dollar standard, especially from Iran who is actively discussing a switch to euros for its oil? Russia, China, the UK and the USA are all involved with current political endeavours in the Mideast. The U.S. is again posed for a war in that part of the world. Could we be facing world conflict given the global political involvement and the fact that OPEC is leaning toward the euro as an oil transaction currency standard? Will the UK side with China, Russia, Iraq and Iran in order to replace the U.S. as the "prime" super power? Assuming that they do, does the UK have the infrastructure to lead the world into a peaceful cooperation? Would the U.S. step down from power without a war? Assuming they do step down and take it on the chin what role would the U.S. play given the change in power, if any? Will this prompt a larger conflict with the super powers or Will it be kept strictly in a political venue? Can the world stage be bought and controlled via a purely political economic standpoint or will force enter into the equation?'' Indeed, if anyone questions these wise questions, they are but themselves, dogmatic and jealous. Good work!!
yay, I finally provoked a thought chain in someone. As for the questions. I couldn't offer my opinion on some, because I'm not really an economic expert. No, It is not imperative to Global stability. Although the US is a large party of the UN, It is not the only, and definitely not the one doing all the work. Other countries such as Australia, UK, Ireland, New Zealand have made substantial contributions to the UN. Australia and New Zealand (I think) were in East Timor to ensure its survival during its birth. Australia (for once) provided the majority of the hardware and equipment for the peacekeeping operation. I don't think so, No country can survive two wars, and a global "war on Terror" without a strong economy. Presumably, all countries that rely heavily on the purchasing power of the US dollar and trade with them extensively will similarly see a decline. This may include many Asian countries, such as singapore, thailand, malaysia, even Australia and New Zealand. Possibly, Even though I don't personally live in the US, It seems that there is no hint of independence from the new Iraqi government. Depends on how desperate the hawks in Washington are. However, I doubt the UK would join in on this conflict, As a peaceful outcome can only benefit them. In my opinion, Not likely, Again, This is my opinion, not fact but China still has a political xenophobic streak, China and Russia may have been allies previously, but I think It won't happen. there will never be a coalition that large, Iran,Iraq and China ..maybe, UK and Russia, maybe. But some of these countries are so powerful economically, Its not likely they'll even think about alliances. With the US stepping down, again, It depends on how pervasive the hawks in the white house are. The US would probably still be a first world country, Just not the most powerful, economically. The fortune 500 may lose its place as the richest companies in the world, Surpassed by other foreign corporations. But Americans should still be able to lead comfortable lives. It might, Again, depending on how the hawks in washington go. The world can be controlled through a politically economic viewpoint, but you'd have to show the disadvantage of using force.
Hi K.Flint, Thanks for asking responses from those outside U.S. I am severely underqualified to comment much on your questions (this doesn't tend to deter me on other issues) but I will be brief. And noting that in my naivety, I do believe I'm less affected by the rhetoric and occasionally see through the vitriole. So anyway, I'll cut the pre-amble and just say that I don't believe the U.S remaining a superpower is imperative to global stability. The idea of global stability seems a tautology anyway. The U.S as "peacekeeper"? Hmmm! Whatever the thoughts of the populus, the leaders/military do not appear to have a balanced grasp of reality/reason and the U.S is not alone in this. As long as national leaders are the alpha personalities whose rise is predicated on their propensity to trample others and push their own agendas there is little hope or chance of peace. If the U.S does relinquish its perch at the top of the international food chain, I don't discount that the U.S may end up far better off in fiscal and humanitarian terms. It will probably be a bitter pill to swallow but the medicine might well set some things at ease. I guess I'm saying here that if you're not the tallest poppy, there is less interest in knocking you down.
True, True, Especially with Australians, we have a severe case of Tall poppy syndrome, Thats why Our New PM didn't want to seem too popular.
