Mandatory drug tests for the unemployed?

[KSG_Standard]

Maybe you're right Geo, but there's also a good chance that drastic disengagement will lead to wars and incredible human suffering. If we lose access to "cheap" oil before we have a viable alternative to it, we're hosed as well. Or it could be hyper inflation that gets us. We are in a spot we haven't been in before.

 

[Blackie]

which is why i didn't cut the defense budget. We still have the most powerful military, and its time they backed up a real foreign policy. Pull investments and we pull our bases out of your countries. Us military bases provide a great deal of money to host nations. They can defend themselves... See how much that costs.

The truth about money is that it is all relative in value, even gold. If current policies do not change, and rather quickly we are headed towards a massive revaluation of our currency, most of the world is. Nobody is pulling the plug on anyone as all of our economies are tightly interwoven. Why do you think china hasn't done anything yet? They have the most to lose if they end support. They are not in a position to take over the world economy and become the global reserve currency, no matter what the media hype says.

bingo !

 

[geochem1st]

Maybe you're right Geo, but there's also a good chance that drastic disengagement will lead to wars and incredible human suffering. If we lose access to "cheap" oil before we have a viable alternative to it, we're hosed as well. Or it could be hyper inflation that gets us. We are in a spot we haven't been in before.

All we have had for the past 30 years are wars.

 

[MineGoesTo11]

Maybe you're right Geo, but there's also a good chance that drastic disengagement will lead to wars and incredible human suffering. If we lose access to "cheap" oil before we have a viable alternative to it, we're hosed as well. Or it could be hyper inflation that gets us. We are in a spot we haven't been in before.

At the end of the depression, you had WWII and the resulting need of goods in the wreckage of Europe. You also had the resources to back this up. Now things certainly are different. The future will be about 'resource nationalism'. It could get ugly, very ugly.

 

[mudfinger]

At the risk of sounding like a heartless imperial Yankee...we still have Central and South America at our disposal, should things get dire and we need more resources. I hear Venezuala has lots of oil; we could take that. If it comes down to open warfare, it's still our game to lose.

 

[Deguello]

We're not talking about subsidizing those on Welfare. We're talking about giving them free money while they're not working. Many of them for years upon years. I don't see this distinction as being unreasonable.

Actually this thread has nothing to do with welfare, its targeted at those on unemployment. 2 completely different things

I am all for testing those who receive long term welfare checks and never worked a day in their life

 

[KSG_Standard]

All we have had for the past 30 years are wars.

True, but other than Vietnam, all the wars America has been in have been what the politicians call low intensity. Smaller force structures, asymmetrical stuff...bloody for the other side but relatively bloodless for us...5000 or so dead GIs and Marines in Iraq in 8 years and 1100-1200 dead Americans in Afghanistan in 9 years.

Us disengaged from the world might lead to something much bigger and much worse...Might not, but it is a risk that comes from a more isolationist stance. What happens without us in ROK, Taiwan, Japan, the old Soviet Block, Pakistan, India?

Who'll protect the oil and shipping routes for oil until we have a viable alternative?

I don't know, but the possibilities are scary. YMMV

 

[geochem1st]

Past my bed time, have work in the morning.... and it is morning. Night all.

 

[mudfinger]

Past my bed time, have work in the morning.... and it is morning. Night all.

Sleep well, Mr. President.

 

[KSG_Standard]

Past my bed time, have work in the morning.... and it is morning. Night all.

Sleep tight.

 

[geochem1st]

True, but other than Vietnam, all the wars America has been in have been what the politicians call low intensity. Smaller force structures, asymmetrical stuff...bloody for the other side but relatively bloodless for us...5000 or so dead GIs and Marines in Iraq in 8 years and 1100-1200 dead Americans in Afghanistan in 9 years.

Us disengaged from the world might lead to something much bigger and much worse...Might not, but it is a risk that comes from a more isolationist stance. What happens without us in ROK, Taiwan, Japan, the old Soviet Block, Pakistan, India?

Who'll protect the oil and shipping routes for oil until we have a viable alternative?

I don't know, but the possibilities are scary. YMMV

I am not talking about isolationism, more so nationalism. I would threaten to disengage from countries that pull out their investments here as we realign our economy. Nobody wants to lose our military bases and the protection they provide, the security and cost savings to those countries are huge. It is a tool that we can use to align our allies.

 

[geochem1st]

Sleep tight.

Night! Once again, KSG, good discussion.

 

[Blackie]

True, but other than Vietnam, all the wars America has been in have been what the politicians call low intensity. Smaller force structures, asymmetrical stuff...bloody for the other side but relatively bloodless for us...5000 or so dead GIs and Marines in Iraq in 8 years and 1100-1200 dead Americans in Afghanistan in 9 years.

Us disengaged from the world might lead to something much bigger and much worse...Might not, but it is a risk that comes from a more isolationist stance. What happens without us in ROK, Taiwan, Japan, the old Soviet Block, Pakistan, India?

Who'll protect the oil and shipping routes for oil until we have a viable alternative?

I don't know, but the possibilities are scary. YMMV

Why don't you come out to Section 60 with me and we can delight in how bloodless it all is.

 

[geochem1st]

You have crossed a line here that you should not forget you callus sounding jackass.
It is obvious you have no idea about millitary service and your statements as if you are above things and discussing body count in contrast to what the fu-k ever are highly insulting,

Why don't you come out to Section 60 with me and we can delight in how bloodless it all is.

While I completely understand your sentiment, I believe KSG was referring to the 'relative' number of casualties of current wars compared to the devastating losses of WWII. It's kind of like how Generals view acceptable loss rates, but they are not the ones bleeding as you point out.

I haven't seen the exact numbers but I believe that in addition to military casualties, todays wars are far more expensive to conduct. So even if they are categorized as relatively 'small', assymetrical exchanges, they are big dollar items to conduct and have a large impact on our deficit, again compared to the direct costs of conduting WWII.

 

[SteveGangi]

Cut the war on terror, bring back NASA!

That works for me Sitting here at work, watching the ISS (station) and and SSME (shuttle) programs etc etc etc all winding down is kinda sad.

 

[SmokestackElRopo]

...and hookers!

HEY NOW.......... Leave the ladies of the night out of this. JEEZ.

 

[Splattle101]

Since we're discussing trade now (which is much more interesting than the OP), I think there's a large elephant in the room. This is the fact that the standard model of economic prosperity requires the manufacture of a vast surplus of goods: 'stuff'. It's that manufacture which produces the employment for the working classes and the profits for the owners and therefore is the basis of domestic prosperity. But all that 'stuff' has to be sold somewhere. So the battle since the 1700s has been for markets into which the industrialising West could sell our 'stuff'.

If you look at the golden ages of prosperity for the US or for Britain before her, they came at times when manufacturing provided employment and profits, and the 'stuff' manufactured got sold off into every corner of the globe. In fact, the money used to buy the 'stuff' was often loaned to the buyer by Britain or the US. "Here, have some money so you can buy some of our 'stuff'."

That model relies on un-industrialised external markets. Where are such markets to be found in a globalized economy?

Furthermore, we know from looking at the GDP and wage figures that the growth of GDP in the West since the 1970s has far outstripped the growth in real wages. It's abundantly clear that growth of GDP is not a good index of general prosperity. And yet it's the narrow definition of 'growth' that is used by economists and politicians. It's a measure that's quite divorced from the reality of the average family trying to buy housing and food and basic services.

Note also two things about the time that growth and wage growth diverged. It began in the late 1960s, but it really kicked in during the late 70s, and it's accelerated since. Two important things happened during that period. One was that the countries to whom we used to sell our 'stuff' got their import substituting industries up and running. We in the West began to lose our external markets for manufactured goods. They also started competing with us in the remaining markets for those goods. Ouch.

The second thing that happened is that the Keynesian consensus in economics was overturned by the free-market fundamentalists, like Friedman and Hayek and the Austrian school. This process began in the early 1960s, but by the late 1970s economics as it was taught at tertiary level was dominated by free market fundamentalists, and it has been ever since. The theories espoused by people previously regarded as fringe dwellers on the borders of economic rationalism became the new orthodoxy. The havoc that this has wrought in our Western economies is just staggering, and we're living through another episode of it right now. And the complication this development gives us now is that the policy elites inhabiting all our major institutions are all devotees and accolytes of the new orthodoxy and they are quite incapable of prescribing anything except more of what got us into this shit hole.

The academic and practical discipline of economics as we know it today is broken.

 

[MineGoesTo11]

Since we're discussing trade now (which is much more interesting than the OP), I think there's a large elephant in the room. This is the fact that the standard model of economic prosperity requires the manufacture of a vast surplus of goods: 'stuff'. It's that manufacture which produces the employment for the working classes and the profits for the owners and therefore is the basis of domestic prosperity. But all that 'stuff' has to be sold somewhere. So the battle since the 1700s has been for markets into which the industrialising West could sell our 'stuff'.

If you look at the golden ages of prosperity for the US or for Britain before her, they came at times when manufacturing provided employment and profits, and the 'stuff' manufactured got sold off into every corner of the globe. In fact, the money used to buy the 'stuff' was often loaned to the buyer by Britain or the US. "Here, have some money so you can buy some of our 'stuff'."

That model relies on un-industrialised external markets. Where are such markets to be found in a globalized economy?

Furthermore, we know from looking at the GDP and wage figures that the growth of GDP in the West since the 1970s has far outstripped the growth in real wages. It's abundantly clear that growth of GDP is not a good index of general prosperity. And yet it's the narrow definition of 'growth' that is used by economists and politicians. It's a measure that's quite divorced from the reality of the average family trying to buy housing and food and basic services.

Note also two things about the time that growth and wage growth diverged. It began in the late 1960s, but it really kicked in during the late 70s, and it's accelerated since. Two important things happened during that period. One was that the countries to whom we used to sell our 'stuff' got their import substituting industries up and running. We in the West began to lose our external markets for manufactured goods. They also started competing with us in the remaining markets for those goods. Ouch.

The second thing that happened is that the Keynesian consensus in economics was overturned by the free-market fundamentalists, like Friedman and Hayek and the Austrian school. This process began in the early 1960s, but by the late 1970s economics as it was taught at tertiary level was dominated by free market fundamentalists, and it has been ever since. The theories espoused by people previously regarded as fringe dwellers on the borders of economic rationalism became the new orthodoxy. The havoc that this has wrought in our Western economies is just staggering, and we're living through another episode of it right now. And the complication this development gives us now is that the policy elites inhabiting all our major institutions are all devotees and accolytes of the new orthodoxy and they are quite incapable of prescribing anything except more of what got us into this shit hole.

The academic and practical discipline of economics as we know it today is broken.

Don't forget about increased competition for resources, some of which are non renewable, more expensive and risky to get at, offering a lower return and are in hostile territory. A return to the easy growth and prosperity isn't just a matter of policy reversals.

 

[PraXis]

Keynesians. lol

 

[Splattle101]

It's all part of the cognitive dissonance in modern economics that people like Pwozz routinely dis Keynes (probably without actually knowing anything at all about him or his economic theory), while living among the wreckage created by abandoning his theory.