I just think we need more people with a positive outlook; panic usually leads to artificial shortages (with hoarding) and wholesale selling, which precipitates the very end it is trying to avoid. Too many people are ruled by fear. That said, the whole US deficit is largely a result of the expenditure on defense and war, which could do with (a lot of ) trimming. But do you believe that will be the focus of the government? They'll probably try to sell more war to cover the deficit. I really don't know. As for errors in your position, I cannot even balance my checkbook, so I would not presume to do so. I can see that the growing deficit can only mean a decrease in the value of the dollar. But I'm guessing that will probably lead to a change in the balance of power, so it may not be such a bad thing (for the non-US world) after all.
The question is: In 10 years what do you think the US will have to sell (to anyone) that is not available more cheaply from others? Sorry, but absolute cheapness is not what people look for in products. We don't put factories in sub-Saharan Africa, where wages would be even cheaper than they are in China. We don't put our help-line call centers in China, where they would charge us even less than India. Instead, we look for the most bang for the buck. So asking where the cheapest things will come from is the wrong question. A lot of what we will be exporting is the services we already provide that aren't accurately counted in our current account balance. These are things like banking, real estate (for ex-pats), insurance, sales, marketing, and most importantly: advertising. Most advertising accounts seem to be in-house because international companies have set up in the U.S., but when someone provides a corporate image for a global company, that is an export that isn't ever counted. What about pop-culture? These are things that aren't counted very well either. Hollywood exports a ton of movie hits that are seen the world-over. If the world economy magically becomes as advanced as you think in the next 10 years (that is the true rose-colored vision in this discussion), then those profits will increase as developed economies rely less on piracy, which is a huge problem in poorer countries. There are also the major stars that tour around the world that make millions of dollars that they bring back to the U.S. and spend on products here. This money isn't counted as well, and must run in the hundreds of millions. Not to mention books and videogames. Videogames becoming a HUGE American export. Especially if the XBox 360 becomes the competitor to Sony's PS3 that it seems destined to become. And that is a perfect way to move to... Software and computer technology. I think you are forgetting that Intel and AMD are American companies. The reason our trade deficit is so high is because American products are made cheaply overseas, and then shipped back into the US. If our economy collapses, as you imagine it might, then it will become CHEAPER for Intel to fab chips right here in the U.S., with a labor-force that is desperate for jobs. Then China, which will be so rich that they are too good for manufacturing jobs, will be ordering their goods from us. People forget that a ton of the products that we import are American-owned products that are manufactured overseas. If our economy even gets CLOSE TO EQUAL with other rising economies, it will make more business sense to manufacture locally, instead of paying shipping and duty premiums. If you understand this concept, this operation of Smith's "Invisible Hand", you will see how impossible it will be for us to be anything worse than EQUAL to China. I could go on and on. There are products like Coke and Pepsi and McDonalds. There are technologies like Walmart's mastery of the supply chain, and global entities like FedEx. There are the MILLIONS and MILLIONS of crucial patents that are U.S.-Owned. The list is endless. The mistake people make when looking at developing countries is twofold: 1. They confuse the rapid "catching up" process with one that will continue unabated, as the rising country zooms right past us. This is false reasoning. Poorer countries catch up fast because they have access to technologies that they didn't have to R&D. There is no reason to think that they will have the ability to forge ahead, much less keep that rising pace up as they go into unknown territory. 2. People make the mistake of thinking that the beneficial qualities of being a poor economy (cheap labor, new capital inflow) will somehow persist once that economy is no longer poor. This is crazy. If China ever become the powerhouse that I truly hope they become, they will no longer have the benefit of a cheap labor source. This is already happening in China today, as new factories have to open up farther inland, to get to a labor force that isn't already "spoiled" by existing factories. Once this demand is satiated, labor costs are going to rise (along with the standard of living of the Chinese populace). This is exactly what has happened in all other economies (the U.S. included). This is what we want to happen. Your timeline is a little conservative, if anything. These points are all valid with a 100-year outlook. We will still have plenty to trade. You are talking about the country that owns most computing patents (hardware and software), and still leads the world in university education, medicine (a huge export once countries get richer), and media. The fact is, the biggest thing we export to other countries right now is the labor that we are too busy and educated to do, and can afford to have someone else perform. We also export a demand for more products at higher quality, with better work environments, with the least impact on the natural environment. That is a monster export, the knowledge and standards that we took generations to perfect. Another thing to keep in mind, while I am spreading all of this good cheer: The United States is not in financial insolvency. The national debt is far smaller than the value of the land and natural resources owned by the United States. The government is by far the largest land-owner in the US, a fact that is not true of most other countries, and overlooked even by some of the brightest economists. And most of this land is overflowing with ores, minerals, and wood that any European country would die for. Saying that the US is broke would be like saying that a man who owns 50 skyscrappers in NYC is broke just because he owes a few grand on his Visa card. And that would be owns as in no leins. Outright. See? Fear-mongering and silliness. The problem is, no media outlet in the country would ever air my far more accurate understanding of the issues. It's boring. So all you get are the opinions that you find all over forums like these. They aren't formed from an understanding of the issues or basic concepts. They are just headlines and talking-points strung together like rotten popcorn on a string.
You seem to think that the Asian boom is due to “catching up” and/or lower quality of product. In some areas that is true, but in some important fields, it is already the US that needs to “catch up” to the Asians and make cars, etc. as well as the Asians do. Intellectually (commercial patents etc.) the US is in process of losing the lead also: I can’t take time just now, but in prior post I have already documented the massive, well funded, program China has to make a 100 “Harvard or Better” universities. They are already “buying the best” professors from all over the world. In the field of flat screen displays, the US is five generations behind the Asian technology. Both China and Japan have human female looking robots that walk around and give information to tourists, etc while US is still struggling to make one, which looks like pieces of an erector set bolted together, walk on anything but level ground. About one of the fourth generation of Japanese robot lady receptions: “...Her name is Repliee Q2, and she's the latest in a series of four human-seeming machines created by the Intelligent Robotics Lab of Osaka University in partnership with Kokoro Ltd. -- a company that markets an earlier version of the robot, the Actroid, as a quadrilingual "receptionist robot." But though the Actroid may have seemed human from a distance, up close, subtle visual cues -- stiff lips and chin, lack of muscular movement in areas like the neck and cheeks -- instantly marked it as no more than an amazing mechanical achievement. {however,}…Repliee Q2 can fool most people at three meters for a few seconds," says Karl MacDorman, who has been with the lab for the past two years, helping to develop Repliee's control software. "[But] what is really surprising is how [even] people who know full well that they are machines cannot help but treat them as if they were human. One visitor said he felt like asking Repliee if it was all right before turning off the light at the end of the day. ..." This text is from article called: “Why Japan, and not America, is likely to be the world's first cyborg society.” Read it all (many other reasons why US is falling behind) at: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2005/08/25/apop.DTL Hope they do not charge US too much to license their patents. About the Chinese robot receptionist, Mis Rong Ching (I saw her on BBC program today - amazing! But what really astounded me was the BBC's reporter's casual question: "She likes red dresses?" as if a robot could care.): "...The robot is designed to look like a woman and it is programmed to speak Mandarin as well as a Sichuan dialect because she will be sent to the Sichuan Science Museum in Chengdu to act as a receptionist and tour guide. ... voice recognition function can make the communication between humans and robots more natural and personal, … Robot to be sold to hotels, entertainment outlets{bold in the original} {the cost} is $37 500 and besides dancing and greeting, the 168cm, 60kg "beauty" responds to 500 to 1 000 commands in Mandarin. ..." This text and more Asian “robot links” at: http://www.sabcnews.com/world/asia1pacific/0,2172,132733,00.html China also has the world's only magnetically levitated train in routine commercial opertion. Thanks to the influence of the religious right, the US is hardly running in the race for stem cell medical applications. There are other statements you make that at least imply US is in leadership position, that are also false. I did not ask where would the cheapest items come from in 10 year, but what (for a list of things you though the US could still sell globally then. I had suggested possibly wheat) You have correctly mentioned patents, but I am not sure that US will not need to buy /license more patents than it sells, in view of how many advanced technology area the US is now lagging others. You also mentioned financial service, but I think that entirely wrong. The US will be greatly in need of them, not providing them. Already most “back office” activity has been exported. Insurance and banking, especially as dollar begins to fall rapidly, will all be centered out of the US. Perhaps even out of London, but obviously I can not prove this (any more than you can that US will be providing these services then.) I believe my POV is the correct one because financial services will be done where the currency is sound, as they always have been. That is not the US in ten years. There is book, called “the world is flat” you should read. It is about how the internet has changed everything. To give just one non financial example, already common in large, cost-conscious, hospitals: - Your diagnostic (not emergency) X-ray goes thru the internet to a doctor in India who reads it, writes the report, while it is night in the US, and your hospital doctor has the report in his hands when he arrives back at your hospital bed the next day. Do not count on US making much foreign exchange income from any thing that can go thru the internet. Certainly financial services can and already increasingly are. BTW I think India's Bollowood already equals Hollowood in external sales and that China not only makes most of the world's computers and the games played on them but has also creadted a whole associated and large industry that does not even exist in the US. I don't play computer games, but from what I have read in many you can gain special tools or powers etc. if you play well. There are 10s of thousands of young "professional game players" in China who play games all day long discovering these "tools and powers" hidden in the games and they live by selling them to non-professional game players.
to Swivel et. al.: More on China’s education drive: My first post about this told of two MIT and one Princeton professors, recognized as world leader in their field going to China. Many are not being “bought.” The one mentioned below is giving up a $25 million dollar salary from Goldman Sacks to be part of the educational revolution now taking place in China. Many going are ethnic Chinese, but at least half are not. Text below is from Robert Hsu’s free Inside China Dispatch Email, of 31August 06. (I do not suggest you subscribe (pay for full dispatch), or any of the others found at www.iplacereports.com because either (1) these people really think they can make more money selling advice to you than by acting on it themselves, OR (2) they have acted on it and now need a “greater fool” to sell out too. MHO; but they do provide a lot of free information.) “…Education is very important in China because the country’s leaders understand the “winner take all” nature of globalization, so they devote education resources to groom China’s best and brightest* into global victors. A disproportionate amount of public funding goes into a handful of China’s top universities and regional “focus” schools for high achieving students. The Chinese government strives to turn Tsinghua University (China’s version of MIT) and Beijing University (China’s version of Harvard) into the best schools in the world. The government works hard to attract world-class scholars and leaders to teach at China’s leading universities, so students there are gaining access to top faculties and facilities. One global business leader who signed up to teach at Tsinghua is John Thornton, the former president of Wall Street powerhouse Goldman Sachs (where I used to work). Thornton gave up his $25 million salary to teach global leadership at Tsinghua’s graduate business school because he wants to be a part of the most exciting economic transformation of our generation. It is not easy to get into Tsinghua. My research assistant Fei, a Tsinghua alum who also has a Ph.D. in biochemistry from UCLA, had to outscore 99.9% of high school applicants to gain admission to China’s best college. Fei came from Wuhan, a second-tier industrial city in central China with a population of 8 million. Because he was the valedictorian at his local elementary school, he was assigned to a top “focus” school over an hour away from his home. For the next 10 years, he lived in tight quarters crammed six to a room with other middle, high school and college students. That’s a typical experience for China’s best and brightest. …” Billy T comments: (1)China already produces many more scientist than the US, and a significant fraction (at the Ph.D. in Physics level/group, at least half) of the US’s are not native Americans, but people who are now thinking about and are going to China as that is where the growth and future is. In ten year, none will want to come to US to study, even if US’s “War on Terror” limits on immigration were removed. I may be looking thru dark glasses, but at least I can see clearly the trends. *(2)It may not be PC to say this, but after having been spit upon too many times to count and once beaten (fortunately by frail old lady's cane) in the civil rights movement, I think I dare: All humanity came from central Africa, and there does seem to be a just detectable correlation in the IQ of populations proportional to there separation from the point of origin. Perhaps some selection mechanism operated as they moved that favored the more intelligent. That is, the slightly more intelligent people are Eastern Asians, and the slightly less than average are still in Africa, with Caucasian near average.
Because they think that the WTO is too powerful, advancing globalisation at the expense of democracy. They think that free trade is not fair trade.
Billy T, People said the same things about Japan in the 80's. They caught up fast, and then had to deal with the same realities that we are dealing with. I read "The World is Flat" and do not think it makes the case that you think it does. The author is more aligned with my feelings that we are seeing a catch-up effect that will subside and level off. I think you are just taking all of the worst scare-tactic headlines and letting them overwhelm you. Let's back away from that for a bit and discuss what you think the worst-case scenario is for the United States in the future. Civil War? Mass starvation? Extinction of our species? Rise in unemployment of ~20 percent? New government? What are we worried about happening? Because most of your arguments keep orbiting around a loss of manufacturing. Cars, plasma TV's, computers, etc... I don't know how many times I have to remind you, but manufacturing jobs suck and we want to get rid of all of them. Seriously. Every last one, if it were economically feasible (which it isn't). Also... crops will never be the thing that employs most Americans. Right now we have a situation where 3% of our population feeds the other 97% with enough left over for export. This transition, from a time where a majority of people worked the farms, to our current low of 3% is what led to the Great Depression. It was a momentus time for humanity, and one that will not need to be undone. The other 97% will always need something to do. If you remember from "The World is Flat", the author explains that every country can't do it all. Even if China becomes better at many things, it will not want to continue doing the small things. Let's assume that they surpass us in all ways. With over a billion people that now need civilized services (like personal banking, real-estate, financing, insurance, tax preparation) they are going to start supplying those services for themselves, because these are high-paying white-collar jobs. More Chinese are going to go into retail, to sell each other goods. They will move up the economic ladder, just like every developing country. Meanwhile, the U.S. (according to the fear-tacticians) will be languishing with high unemployment. China will realize that it has unprecendented wealth, and too many of its citizens are going into high-paying jobs, and making a mass exodus out of the factories and into the office buildings. A few Chinese business owners will realize that they can make much more money if they move one of their factories to the American South, where cheap labor awaits. The experiment is a success, and more Chinese businesses follow suit. The United States then becomes one of the manufacturing leaders in the world, putting its natural resources to great use. The liberals and idiots celebrate, thinking that making "stuff" is somehow more important than having high-paying jobs and a better standard of living. The world goes on.
I have noted the loss of manufacturing jobs AND service jobs, to show the trend in BOTH are strongly downward. I would not be too concerned if one were up and the other were down. This downward trend towards less US ability to EARN the foreign exchange it needs, is of course also reflected in the growing trade deficits and the increasing US borrowing. Thus my arguments does NOT “orbiting around a loss of manufacturing,” as you suggest. Instead it centers on the increasing need to BORROW, instead of EARN, the foreign exchange needed to pay for US imports. Exporting manufacturing jobs, especially low profit per pound ones, such as cars for US market is much harder than exporting service jobs. This is true because of the low cost of moving information compared to high cost of moving kilograms. That is why Toyota builds cars in the US, but has it “call center” in India. If the US can hang on to any service jobs 10 years hence, they will be intrinsically local services, like cutting some one’s hair and in agriculture, but I agree with you that only about 3% of Americans can earn their living directly* in agriculture. Perhaps a few very dumb ones will, but most will do what most are already doing - going to Indonesia etc (even to Brazil) where real labor savings can be made. Already, Chinese wages have risen so much that China must import most of the components of the electronics it designs and assembles from cheaper labor areas, so you must be looking thru even darker glasses than I am to expect US wages to drop below those in Indonesia etc. You erroneously stated the “basic flaw” in my argument. I will try to correctly state your “basic flaw”: You assume that US only needs to get out of the manufacturing jobs that “suck” and then all Americans will work in nice clean offices at service jobs. Why will not these service jobs be provided by Indians, if English is required and Indonesians, etc if it is not? Why trust your banking and insurance needs to a country which can not even pay its own debts? --------------------------------------- *Farm machines are higher profit per pound items than cars, so the indirect agricultural jobs are already leaving the US. Go to a farmer’s fair and see the farmer negotiating with the Kubota tractors rep while the John Deer tractor rep is trying to stir up some interest by offering free wagon rides to kids.
The United States has never once in its history defaulted on a loan payment. If the budget gets tight, we would shuck off Social Security and Medicare before we defaulted on our loans. Those two are the big killers in our budget right now. Sadly, Americans can't be trusted to plan their financial futures out, so the government has to babby-sit them, and tax the hell out of the populace to do so. And as I have explained already, the United States is majority land-owner of a very wealthy nation. It isn't even close to being upside-down as far as its assets go. That is more ballyhoo from the unthinking pundits. If the U.S. ever needed to pay some debt off, it could more aggressively sell land, even land that is currently protected (we have more protected land than any other country in the world). We could even sell off the Alaskan oil reserves, or the rights to fish our waters, or engage in fish-farming (which is taking off in some parts, and is going to be a huge market for us). Again, the US assets far outweigh the debt, and if you do not take this into account in your model, you will arrive at some of the same strange conclusions that the newspaper meatheads come to. You really don't want to be agreeing with that crowd. As for the basic flaw in my argument, I don't contend that we will all work office jobs. I was arguing ad absurdium by following the loss of manufacturing jobs to the extreme just to show that it wouldn't be a bad thing. In reality, you could never get rid of all the man. jobs, as I think I clarified in a parenthetical statement immediately following. Look, just because we have a trade deficit does not mean that we are a poor country, or going broke. Remember, economists see this as simply an inflow of capital. There is nothing wrong with trade deficits. Nothing at all. Some European countries have much higher trade imports as a share of GDP. I think the world average at the turn of the century was near 30%, and the U.S. was around 26%, below the average. I'm not sure how much that has changed in the last 6 years, I do know that the deficit is around 6% of GDP, which is the highest ever, but by a very small margin. The truth is, if you look at the history of US trade you will have a hard time finding a correllation between our trade deficit and the health of our economy. There just isn't any link. And if you look at our economy compared to any other one, we are still better off than everybody else. Everybody. Most of Europe keeps unemployment near or above double-digits. If what you are saying is true, then the strong German economy is going to tank as well, they are not as well-insulated and as strong as our economy. The same can be said of Portugal, Spain, France, Britain, Canada, Mexico... why does everyone pretend that the US is going down the tubes, and everyone else is going to benefit? That kind of talk makes this entire argument seem to be one of wishful-thinking motivated by a hatred of the top-dog. Either that or a fearful paranoia of the top-dog that sees the kennel getting crowded. Both ways are reactionary and ignore historical trends and economic truths.
I will read rest soon and reply, but need to quickly get my blood pressure back down. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! {just kidding} You, who like to cite historical precedent, must know that we old guys vote. For example when Argentina recently told the IMF and other foreign lenders to either accept 25% of face or to go f... them selves - they had sucked too much blood in high interest rates already, etc. Argentina slightly increased the old age pensioner funds, as I recall, to compensate for the economic pain that fell immediately on a defaulting country. Even Brazil is still two steps from "investment grade" bond rating because of a default about 20 years ago even though it is paying off ALL external debts by end of 2008. (The IMF's was fully paid back last year.) The Real is so strong that it is hurting exports even with the central bank buying up dollars in the open market almost every week.* (None of the old dollar debts is now being rolled - they pay them off when they fall due and many are being redeemed even before due date. (All of the "Brady bonds" have been, some more than five years before due!) Brazil has corruption and much over extended retirement promises such as full salary retirement at 55 years of age until recent reforms and so is not as sound as it should be, but cutting back on "acquired rights" requires a constitutional change and corruption is the historic way of life, but slowly changing - some politician actually have gone to jail, but as the wonderfully expressive phrase here goes, it usually "all ends in pizza" still. - I.e. the lawyers, the judges and the crooks all go out together at end of the trial for beer and pizza. ) SUMMARY: (now that blood pressure is back down) Agreed. - US will never default, or need to, but if all of the mint’s printing presses were broken and it came down to a choice between faulting on debts to foreigners or reneging on life-long promises made to us old voters, do your really have any doubt as to which Congress would chose? Your are just lucky I like you and enjoy this debate or you would be reported to ARRP's "drastic action committee" for even suggesting cut of SS is possible. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Next post will deal with “sell US assets” alternative. ------------------------------------ *The Real issued to buy these dollars are “sterilized” to prevent inflation by requiring commercial banks to deposit 40% of their deposits with the central bank, interest free. - The banks in turn have less than 60% of all deposits available to lend. Thus, Brazil has the highest real interest rates in the world and a growth rate of less than half of the other “BRICKS” as a result. Not much higher than the US’s growth rate, but after 2008, when Brazil is external debt free, and this non-sense stops, local rates will drop greatly and Brazil should surpass China’s grow rate for a few years. - not quite time yet to move more of my funds here yet, however, as the October national elections always can make a mess, or at least “uncertainty,” and my investment dollars will buy more Real then.
Billy T, you trip me out. This thread has become the first thing I check up on when I get on SciForums. I wonder if any correllation could be found between Social Security and the spoiled generation that is now in its 30's? The aged had a situation where they had an inflow of capital even if they were not in need of it, leaving more to a generation that didn't have to work early and hard and learn the value of a buck. The problem I have with Medicare and Social Security is that it targets old people instead of poor and needy people. You will not find me disagreeing that Social Security and Medicare has helped a lot of poor elderly, especially in the 40's and 50's. But it also wastes billions of dollars on people that don't need it. And the less you need it, the more of it you get. Horrible system. It is not free money, and it isn't even equal to the money paid into it. That same money, collecting compound interest in a bank account, would be worth more 40 years later than the same ammount you get out of it. Horrible, horrible, horrible system. One of the few social welfare systems that helps redirect money from the poor and Middle Class to the rich. Like you implied... it pays for votes. Just disgusting. It is breaking the back of the federal government more than any other thing that you complain about, and yet you act as if it is untouchable. I am only 31 years old, have been given nothing by my parents my entire life, have lived a pauper's life, and have been able to save $100,000 in principle in my current house, and put $25,000 in a savings account that I refuse to touch. I have done this while working on boats for years, and now as a lowly roofer. I'm not bragging, on the contrary... if a poor fool like me can save, anyone can. Another thing I hate about the system is the lottery nature of it all. If you pass away before 65, the money you paid into it is lost. This is partly how SS can work as well as it can, but it means that the lucky are doubly so, and the poor schmucks hit by a bus have the thing thrown in reverse to roll over them again. And IRA's and 401K's don't work either. Since people have a coerced form of savings, they just don't save elsewhere. They factor these accounts into their spending habits and the outcome is the exact same. All we need is some tougher love, and a safety net for the severely impovershed. Nobody should be homeless or starve in our country, but nobody should be given enough to afford a car, a TV, and a cellphone. Those are luxuries you work to be rewarded with. Currently we have a ratcheting system that spins one direction very easily, but refuses to budge backwards. Thank goodness for the ultra-conservative Clinton for reforming welfare as much as he could, and saving us a ton of dough. But then we followed him up with the ultra-liberal left-wing Bush, who signed an addition to Medicare (your blood-pressure medication is covered) and is spending hundreds of billions in relief aid in the Middle East. It is almost like the political parties are switching back to their pre-WWII roots, with conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans!
In reverse order: (1)Tell that "fish tale" to the New England watermen who all vote, usually Republican, and are asking (demanding actually) Congress for better enforcement of the 200 mile economic exclusion zone by the US Coast Guard. (2) Tell that "tall tale" to the Chinese oil company the offer 2 billion more than anyone else for Calcon’s reserves, which were private already. Have you ever heard of the Tea Pot Dome scandal that brought down a prior administration, many years ago which tried to sell government oil? (3) As for land sales, haven't you heard, land is valuable only for what you can grow on it, extract from it, or build on it? (3a) As for growing, yes I have already agreed with you that can provide income for approximately 3% of the US population, if Brazil Argentina and Canada do not sell wheat, soybeans, beef, etc cheaper - Oh, No! too bad they already do, with cheaper labor, cheaper land, lots of rain and in Brazil's case more sunlight hours per year. (3b) As for "get out of it", with some exception, the oil is gone as is the gold, iron ore, etc. - one of the disadvantage of a prior long period of stable government - it has all been explored. True there is a lot of coal still, mostly deep and high sulfur content, and world's beginning to tax carbon sources and turn to cleaner sources etc. (3c) Well at least that leaves "build on it." What?! Housing bubble starting to shrink - soon to burst? Hey that three strikes and you out! Isn't that the rule? But, yes you are correct the US does have ownership of a lot of acres, especially in frozen Alaska, but it very questionable if they can be sold as profitably as you suggest, and to whom, will Congress permit? US is perhaps the richest country in the world in term of financial assets, and money already invested in infrastructure, but not in mineral (including oil as one) wealth. However, much of the infrastructure investment is in “suburban infrastructure” (super highways, instead of light rail; ranch homes instead urban apartments; SUV instead of efficient personnel rapid transit system, etc.) and will only be lost when torn down to make it possible to grow food closer to where it is needed instead of half a continent away (Idaho potatoes for NYC , flordia OJ for Main ,if not from California, etc.) I agree that there is nothing wrong with deficits/ borrowing IF for increase in productivity, but not if for living beyond your means, or FOR WAR as has been the case in US.
I don't understand your points about land worth. This is land that the the U.S. can sell to U.S. businesses and citizens. You know, for building commercial or residential structures. And this isn't land in Alaska, the U.S. owns millions of acres all across the country. Prime real-estate. And when times get dire, we'll start taxing churches. The current policy is a blatant violation of the separation of church and state clause. People try to pretend that separation means that government can't tax land owned by churches, but the opposite is true. By not treating churches like every other business, government lends them a priviledged status that lends credibility. Churches must be treated like any other business as if it is a secular affair. The separation clause was intended to keep parochialism out of politics, like what the founding fathers knew from recent British history. Ironically, we have gone the wrong direction on both accounts. Oh, and your point about voting trends just doesn't hold water in this debate. The reason New England voters have pull over fishing boundaries is because we are not close to defaulting on loans or going broke. You are using current voting trends to imagine potential voting trends in a very different future. One of our newly-elected presidents will come before the American people and give the following speech: "Fellow Americans, we are nearly broke. Our country has gone through rough times in the past, and we will get through this one as well. I have a very specific plan for how we will get through this crisis, and it is going to take some very tough decisions. We can no longer be the juvenille country that we have been of late, spending so much for our immediate self-gratification. We must now be just as responsible in government as the rest of you must be with your own accounts. For I have something embarrassing to admit, the government has been wasting your money. Yes, YOUR money. We are going to start by raising the age of retirement to 70. This reflects the rise in life-expectancy we have enjoyed recently and will add 12 years to the solvency of Social Security and MediCare. This will surely upset those of you that are close to the current retirement age, just as it has affected changes in driving and drinking ages in the past. We applaud you for this minor sacrafice in restoring our country to greatness. It is much like the sacrafices that a previous generation made when they gave up their very young lives to protect our ideals. We know it is the least you can do. The next most important thing we are doing is removing all trade barriers. The United States will now be a pure free-trade zone without any treaty required from our trading partners. This is because protectionism is bad. It does real harm to ourselves and our economy. Let me tell you about an analogy that the esteemed economist Timothy Taylor once told me about: He said that two countries engaging in protectionist trade was exactly like two countries that were in the process of blowing themselves up. And both countries refused to stop blowing itself up until the other country agreed to follow suit. This is obvious folly, and the United States does not need any reason other than its own welfare to want to stop harming itself. I demand that congress pass a law ending the practice of hampering trade in order to protect inefficient American production. We are Americans, we should want to compete with the world on a level playing field, and either beat them there, or find something else to do with our resources. Churches will now pay taxes for all land that they own. No more favoritism and no more free ride. And church-goers should be ashamed of themselves if they want to keep contributing to the financial woes of our country. Our school systems will now be privatized. I've looked at results of public schools compared to magnet schools that work on a lottery from the same population of students, and is privately funded, and the public schools fail every metric. Governments just aren't good at coordinating such large efforts without a lot of waste. For this reason, schooling will now be a botton-up problem, and not a top-down one. Planned education seems to fail just as readily as planned economies. The government gives up. The postal service will also be privatized. This has been done in other countries to good effect. The USPS will sell its assets to the highest bidder, and dispose of all land, buildings and infrastructure. This alone will provide $100 billion dollars to see us through these hard times. This will also mean that your mail will be cheaper, and the service will be better. Just like when DMV's are privatized, you will soon discover what the Russians did, governments do everything worse than private owners who have pride and motivation for what they are doing. Similarly, email will now be taxed. A very, very small tax. $0.001 for every email. This means that if you send 100 emails a month, it will only cost you a dime. 1,000 emails will cost you one dollar. I think we can all agree that these costs are close enough to nothing to be considered trivial. However, it will end spam immediately by making it a money-loser, and even these small amounts will provide billions of dollars in aggregate to our coffers. Many of our roads will now be privatized. Much of the initial road-building in the United States was done with private money, and done well. The most successful railroad ever built was done with private dollars, while the famous transcontinental railroad built by the government was broke before it was completed, was horribly built, and was plagued by waste, graft, and needless death. We must learn from our mistakes and stop letting greed and ambition guide our hands. Toll roads, with automatic electronic trasfers will be put into place and transferred to the highest bidders. A decrease in gas taxes, which currently provide for our wasteful system of repair and maintenance, will help offset this cost. The savings will be in efficiency. Our current military is standing down and a new military is going to take its place. Advancements in technology have made ground-wars too expensive. Future wars are going to be fought from a distance with precision bombing and an end of supply lines. Here is how a war is going to go in the future, borrowing from a recent debacle: Let's assume a dictator is deemed to be a threat. International sanctions have gone ignored or been violated. U.N. resolutions are unmet, one after another. The new US military will announce its intentions well ahead of time. It plans on bombing the current supply lines of this country. Every target is announed 8 hours before the bombs strike. Enough time to get people and small supplies out, but not enough time to retool. Factories, power, water, infrastructure, military bases, political buildings, convoys, farms. Anything and everything that can be used by the military and this dictator will be taken away. All bank accounts frozen. All foreign trade prohibited. All with the backing of the United Nations. It will end as soon as compliance is promised or any other demands met. The citizens of the country will be told that this war is against their current government, and they also have the power to end the war by changing that government. Two caveats, my American friends: Any protestors will be ignored if they attempt a sit-in to prevent the bombing of this infrastructure. The United States can not relent to terrorists, even if they are our own college students thinking they are doing something good. Believe me, you will grow out of your utopian fantasies. Secondly, religious structures will not be immune to this tactic, especially if they are being used as military bases. Another war will end as of now, the War on Poverty. Since LBJ began this war 42 years ago, we have spent 7 trillion dollars waging it. Yes. 7 trillion. And the poverty rate has not been changed by this spending. As you can see, it follows our recessions and the boom and bust cycle of our economy that the fed creates with its mismanagement of the prime interest rate: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! What you will not see here is that after the bust in late 1999, the rate goes back to 1959 levels, and then starts to come back down with the current boom. Ladies and gentlemen of the United States of America, we have spent 7 trillion dollars and not gotten a thing in return. You can not give out food stamps and pretend that you are only providing for the necessities of a person. If they use those stamps for food, you have freed up their other meager resources for some other waste. You have changed nothing. Most of our hand-outs work this way, with the best of intentions, but the worst of outcomes. We are creating a dependency on this system and going broke in the process. It must end now. During the next four years, I will be leading this crusade to save our country from insolvency. Air Force One will sit on the tarmac for the next four years and only be used in the case of nuclear war. Most of my business and meetings will be held via teleconferencing or intermediaries. Travel from foreign dignitaries will be promoted, and decent accomodations will be provided, but no more galavanting about wasting your money. If you see me flying coach and I am in the middle of a book, please do not disturb me. (here the new president will pause for laughter) Thanks to reduced travel, the Secret Service will be pared down. My eating costs will be the lowest in the history of our country. I am forgoing all wages since my other needs are cared for, and will keep my staff to a minimum. I set this example for the rest of my colleagues in government and urge them to look around and see what costs they can save before I have to decide for them. Previous generations have suffered far worse than this. It is the least we can to to preserve the Constitition they fought an Empire for. To preserve the Union they killed their own brothers and fathers and sons for. To preserve the democracy that they waged two world wars for. To preserve the liberties that they waged a war on terrorism for. Doing with less is the least we can do.
This fictional president doesn't care about being the best. He just knows that we can get an even better output for less money. One thing at a time. Besides, unlike the Finnish, Americans aren't obsessed with being the "Best" at everything. We applaud the success of the Finnish and wish them well in all future endeavors. We think such needless ranking and fanboyish competition does more harm than good. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Sounds like he has a bright future in politics. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Of course, you could point out some of this ignorance, and provide evidence that this fictional president lied, instead of just saying it is so. That way we could have a conversation about the issues. Seems like a more constructive way of doing things than just to run around calling people names and attempting to win arguments by fiat. Then again, doing it your way makes you immune to ever being wrong, since you aren't really saying anything. It also means you don't have to do any research, or learn anything, since you aren't going to need to form an educated opinion about any topic. All you have to do is jump in a thread and call people uneducated and a liar, and give a link to something you just Googled. Now that I see it in font, your way does seem to have advantages over rationalism and the ethical treatment of others...
