It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I have come to the conlusion that US might is overblown, a paper tiger.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:
cjf

posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   


We all have heard about the US trade deficit, and some of us understand the true dangers that the US trade deficit has on the global economy.





So, the might of the US military is partly resting on an economic bubble.



Could you please elabotate on these US trade deficit dangers to the global economies that are only understood by some (that we have all have obviously heard about) and perhaps how they might even remotely relate to the US military budget/expenditures?

Or...perhaps simply reading your definition of the 'US trade deficit', how your idea of the 'ledger' operates, how this fits into the US GDP, US military expenditures and international economies would be a start and help to clarify your premise.




posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Red Golem

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
One of the most annoying things in this world is when people who don't live in the US and may have never even visited the US reads a book and then lays claim that they know the US is going to break up into different areas of politics where there are different countries. The US will always be comprised of at least 50 states, and there will never be different countries within the US. Get a clue.


Ryanp,
Just whated to let you know that there have been numerous threats to succeed from the union from more then one state, and one state in particular at many different times. That is what led to the US civil war you know. Not saying that I agree with any of it, just that it is more of a possibility then what you seemed to be stating.


Tell me... how many times have these threats been made since 1970?

EXACTLY!



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blobber
We all have heard about the US trade deficit, and some of us understand the true dangers that the US trade deficit has on the global economy. The US trade deficit has widened very much in the last decade, especially during the Bush administration.

According to CNN, in 2004 the US economy had a trade deficit of around $618 billion. Sources on the internet show a US defence budget of around $416 billion in that same year. Given the fact that the US trade deficit has become a structural problem, one can conclude that the US is on a structural basis spending more than she deserves.

So, the might of the US military is partly resting on an economic bubble. Just like someone who is showing off his wealth (expensive cars, designer clothes, exclusive perfume etc.) to the public but is in fact almost bankrupt.

It's true that the US appears on the surface to have some nifty classified technology, but reality also shows that the US in the open market has an ATP (Advanced Technological Product) deficit since 2002.

With this all I have come to the conclusion that the US might, militarily and economically, is in reality very much overblown -a paper tiger.

If one realise this, and also take into consideration that globalization will create a multipolar world (a world with not one super power but multiple world powers) then one can only conclude that the US no longer has the room to act as a superpower, but that she in reality should strife for multilateralism. The war on terrorism, or any other wars, should therefore be fought through some consensus in world politics, instead of unilateral moves, to avoid disasters for the world but also the US itself in geopolitics as well as in economics.

Blobber



[edit on 9-4-2005 by Blobber]


There is no Trade Deficit, or Budget Deficit, or any deficite. Search this site for the most recent thread about the Federal Reserve and how it came about.
And all the irrefutable sources that back up the information about it.
It's all one big scam!



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 04:42 AM
link   
Ryanp5555
There was at least one that I know of. But I did not understand what politics was back in 1970 so I cant really say how offen it might have happened in the last 30 years or so.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 07:45 AM
link   
I can pretty much guarantee that if the US is ever directly chalenged or denied the resources that it ''needs'' then they will just take what they want with force. What do u think such a massive military is maintained for? They know the day will come when it will simply be whoever is the biggest/strongest will get what they want.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   
I will just make one reply, instead of replying to all you people.

I understand that the conclusion I have made is controversial to some, but I am not here going to have a lengthy debate about macro-economics. Simply because I don't have the time nor the motivation.

I want to say however that a structural trade deficit signals an economy that must "be reformed". We know that military budgets depends on gdp, so there is that indirect link between trade deficit and military spendings.

Also, ask yourself who has been lending money all the time to fill the current account deficit of the US. And ask yourself why the IMF and World Bank warned the US recently that her current monetary policy is a serious risk for the world.

Blobber



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Paper Tiger?

I remember being stationed at Fort Hood , Texas and walking down the rows of parked M-1 tanks belonging to the 2nd Armored Division (Hell on Wheels).

1000's of war machines lined up, tuned up and ready to go. The crews are all trained and can shoot a fly off a donkeys a** at 800m.

Its an impressive sight and those M-1s are anything BUT a Paper Tiger. Thats real steel Blobber, not paper. As I looked at these Tanks (mine included) it dawned on me that America can take on any force, anywhere, anytime.

We're in debt? No big deal.....once we get the war over with, it will be paid down again.


Maximu§





[edit on 093030p://000 by LA_Maximus]



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 09:51 AM
link   
This idea that there are resources that could be denied to US is strange to me. As a student of history (on my own, no indoctrinations for me) I know that the potential for the US to harvest her resources is at present only being scratched today. If the US were ever confronted in the matter described she could be self sustain many years after the other nations starve themselves to death.

My god we have a government paying farmers not to grow crops, yet we feed the world. We have millions of acres of land that are only being utilized for their cosmetic appeal. If the need arose we could take just a fraction of the resources from those lands and sustain ourselves with no problems.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Blober you have made some valid points, especially considering US trade deficit and debt. But this gives not only weakness but also power. Tell me what happens if US becomes bankrupt? Other countries will be greatly affected too.
EU - especially Germany export really lot to the US. Howerver I think EU will be least affected.
Japan - complete disaster
China - the same. Now they have over 300billion positive trade bilance with US. How much money and jobs wouldl they lost.
It is worlds best interest to keep US above the water.
However this may not last forever, of course.

BTW, It's funny but I have just read a book from R. Hailey from the 70ties and he thought US wiill colapse in 5 years too.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
Blober you have made some valid points, especially considering US trade deficit and debt. But this gives not only weakness but also power. Tell me what happens if US becomes bankrupt? Other countries will be greatly affected too.
EU - especially Germany export really lot to the US. Howerver I think EU will be least affected.
Japan - complete disaster
China - the same. Now they have over 300billion positive trade bilance with US. How much money and jobs wouldl they lost.
It is worlds best interest to keep US above the water.
However this may not last forever, of course.

BTW, It's funny but I have just read a book from R. Hailey from the 70ties and he thought US wiill colapse in 5 years too.


Exactly Longbow.

The global market is re-alligning to a new form of natural equilibrium. The question is whether that will be with a big bang or gradually.

Let us hope for all it is the last.

Blobber


[edit on 10-4-2005 by Blobber]



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blobber

Also, ask yourself who has been lending money all the time to fill the current account deficit of the US. And ask yourself why the IMF and World Bank warned the US recently that her current monetary policy is a serious risk for the world.

Blobber


Woah... Impossible Mission Force warned the US about it's current monetary policy being a serious risk for the world. Do you know if it was Ethan Hunt?
Sorry I couldn't resist. I really have nothing else to contribute.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Paper Tiger? I thought that expression went out in the sixties. The US is the economic engine of the world. What would happen to China if we stopped buying their stuff for say three days? Itd be cataclysmic. Hense why we wont go to war with China. If the US switched half its petro usage to natural ie electric hydro etc...most oil producing nations would implode. It is in the entire worlds best interest that Americans stay fat and rich. The rest of the world depends on us for their economic survival. As for militarily, this paper tiger sure has a nasty habit of chewing up anybodies armies and leaving them as feces. What suprises me is how fast. We dont want wars of attrition that drag on. They cost too much. We can devestate any nation in 48 hours if need be. Thats without nukes.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Not much time here but I will say this, the United States is in no real danger, these doomsday predictions are the same I heard in the early 80's.

Btw, our economy has tripled since then.

Paper Tiger?



Whether anyone wants to realize it, the US is at the head of what the 21st century will become, you either get on board or you will be left behind.


cjf

posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Umm...America's "trade deficit"... here is something you should and need get your head around. Each and every year America exports exactly the same value as it imports. The "trade deficit" merely refers to a part of trade--the current account of the balances of pmts. It ignores completely the capital account of the balances of pmts. Because successful countries get and tend to get a lot of investment coming into the country (which is recorded on and in the capital account) it looks superficially as though these countries, namely the US as the topic here, have/has "deficits", despite the fact the Us and other contries which post these 'deficits' continue to get richer and richer. To the point "trade deficit" is a meaningless term as used here as a danger to the world economy.

One of most important economic truths to grasp and wrap one's mind around about the U.S. trade deficit is it has virtually nothing to do with her current, past or future trade policies.

A nation's trade deficit is determined and driven by the flow of investment capital funds into or out of the country of question, in this case the US. And those flows are determined by how much the people of said nation save and/or invest--two variables that are marginally, and insignificantly affected by trade policy. The nations with high investiture quotents are attractive to its' investors, not a bad sign at all. And btw, why would you want to run a surplus! Brush up on Hume and Adam's for some history.

Very simply put, it is an accounting equation, the T-bar equates and reads as such:

Savings(S) -less- Investment(I) equals Exports(E) -less- Imports(I)

detailed information pages.stern.nyu.edu..." target="_blank" class="postlink">here

If you do not move the capilal account pmt into the ledger later one will currently recieve a negative amount...the 'deficit', a simplification.

A trade 'deficit' reflects the ecomomic prowess of the country indicated, as case of the US it is insatiable and huge. The US is purchasing goods from around the globe, good, the US is amassing wealth, keeping its' domestic prices in line by providing competition (another topic) all the while capital investment is driving this negative number. Very, very far from dreary for the US.

As for the $GDP percentile of expenditure in US military---consider this:

United States is currently 26th in $GDP expenditure ranking at $26.47 per $1.00E+03 for its military. The US in preceeded by Maldives (25th) at $27.56 per $1.00E+03 and followed by Zimbabwe. (Dec 2003) C'mon! If these two #@!* countries can afford this strainful amount on their respective books, I can be certain, beyond any doubt, the US military is no where near decline...and yes the US can afford it...sorry to dissappoint the nay sayers and wishful.

Nearly every country has had a hand her making (at least that is what I hear) and everyone definately has their hand in her pocket.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garatron
War on the other hand, makes a common goal to keep the masses working together, and is sort of the egg in the batter (binder).

To keep people focused away from the appauling acts being done to us on all levels. In a total control society, perpetual war is a must.

We have the best fighting force in the world, and could get the job done anywhere, anytime if need be.


Good point, though I wouldn't be that sure about the last sentence. Otherwise America wouldn't hesitate to go to North Korea or Iran. I think they got pretty much problems with Iraq alone because, as you pointed it out, war is not about dropping bombs alone.

But my two cents are those: one of the ancient Greeks (forgot which one) said "War is the father of all things". As history shows, he might be right. I myself always wondered how the two most evil powers of WWII, Germany and Japan, the defeated parties, could become the economic superpowers in Europe and Asia (of course with a little help from Big Brother America).

But there is no one there to help America to rebuild it's economic system, because America is - or was - on top. Printing new Dollar Bills everday will not help - it only forces inflation and makes the bubble even bigger. And if the oil business will be based on Euro instead of Dollar (it IS possible, Iran is thinking about it) then you have a real problem, the American economic system will collapse even faster. As long as there are enough countries which have their reserves in Dollar, they will try to prevent the crash, because it would crash their markets too. But if they change to Euro, they will just turn around and look the other way.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Cjf while i agree with you that that the USA is far from economic collapse (numbers speak for them self) i take great offence you call my country Maldives a
" #@!* country".
it is not only Americans who love their country and feel patriotic

cheers
Nightdeamon



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 06:23 PM
link   
National Disgrace


Originally posted by nightdeamon
i take great offence you call my country Maldives a
" #@!* country".

As well you should. Nation-bashing is not a thinking man's game, as I am sure most members, including cjf, already know.

Not Just For Yankees Anymore


Originally posted by nightdeamon
it is not only Americans who love their country and feel patriotic

Definitely, and it amazes me that some folks can mistakenly think otherwise.

While excessive nationalism can lead to its own form of bigotry, there's nothing wrong with loving one's country and being patriotic.

There are very good reasons why countries exist, and why caring for them is a good idea.

I love my country (U.S.) and consider myself a patriot, which is precisely why I encourage others to do likewise, regardless of what country they may happen to live in.

It's our right to choose to do so, and to say as much.

Deficits Are Two-Way Streets

Just to clarify what seems to be a rampant misconception on “deficits” and “foreign investments”.

I often see these given as examples of strategic weaknesses, usually with a finger pointed at the U.S. and how its dependence on foreign trade and investment is a weakness. I'm seeing that in this thread, for example.

What seems to be perennially overlooked in such cases is the fact that because there is so much foreign investment in the U.S., those investors have no reason to want to see a U.S. economic collapse.

Moreover, the fact of these investments should make the obvious point that anyone heavily invested in the U.S., such as China, for example, stands to plunge into the abyss right along with us if we fall.

Why anyone would choose to overlook that fact is beyond me, but to do so is to condemn oneself to never understanding the true nature of international financial dependence and its effect on diplomacy and global strategy.

Most rational people aren't willing to destroy themselves to try to hurt the U.S., which is why the only ones who do try are crazier than outhouse rats, and are dealt with accordingly.




[edit on 4/10/2005 by Majic]


cjf

posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   


Cjf while i agree with you that that the USA is far from economic collapse (numbers speak for them self) i take great offence you call my country Maldives a


My apologies if insult was taken. I meant and mean no disrespect to any nation mentioned, rather I was expressing a stressor of malcontent indirectly toward the general subject matter; rather than using a low grade colloquialism, as it reads now it is inappropriate. Absolutely my oversight.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   
This thread is a joke for MANY reasons.

However, there is ONE that comes to mind.

The US has more nukes then anyone else. That alone makes the US more powerfull then anyone else - nevermind the clear technological and economic leads we have.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 08:33 PM
link   
...............and this has what to do with the war on terror??????




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join