Russian Professor Predicts Fall of U.S. in 2010

reply to post by marg6043


Very true, and I do not base my objections to his theory on his Russian-ness, but rather on the whole of his argument.

He can accidentally be right about the outcome without having a clue as to the cause. Technically anyone who says any country is going to fall has a high probability of being right. Someday. Somehow. Historically, countries fall after some period of time. However that doesnt make their theory of why and how and when correct.

His map of how America will be parceled out shows no understanding of American psychology. As does much of his theory. If he is right, it will be coincidence, not a result of his brilliant analysis.

[edit on 12-1-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Illusion, something like 85% of Ameriocans don't have passports

You do not need a passport to travel interstate in the US... Additionally, the US is enormous, larger than the entire EU combeind. So it should be well understood why Americans do not feel the need to travel overseas, as it is expensive, and very time consumeing. Most Americans have a job and a life in the US to contend with. Traveling overseas, while it is a luxury, is not necessity. The US is very self suffiecent as well, having all the basic necessitys and more.

and there are people who live in the South who still hate the Yankee's,

I would say their numbers are far and in between. Americans disagree with one another all the time. But we also find room to agree with one another on several other matters. See, Americans share a strong symbiotic bond with one another. Anyone who says otherwise, does not fully understand the US and its people.

get my drift. Size does matter, when 9/11 happened it had a great impact in certain parts of the country but not in others.

Please, do not speak of things you do not know. I was in southeast Kansas at the time the twin towers went down. The outcry was enormous. If anything, 9/11 proved how united America is.

You have very rich states and very poor states.

Even the poorests of US states have a higher GDP per capita than many european first world countries... In fact, if Sweden, the Netherlands, UK, Germany and France were added individually as the 51st U.S. state, they would all rank #49 in per-capita GDP/GSP, ahead of only West Virginia and Mississippi. So in per capita terms, even the poorest US states are in pretty good shape. The disparity in rank you point to, between 'rich' and 'poor' US states, really is moot, and without proper research on your part, is misinformation.

As the US is in debt up to its armpits what do you think will happen whenit cannot pay the money back.

This assumes the US will not be able to pay back its debt. Are you aware as a % of GDP, the US is in better shape than Japan is?

reply to post by West Coast


The GDP was never intended to be used as the sole indicator of the health of the economy, why? because numbers could be manipulated to show what its not there.

In the US our government plays with the GDP figures that can always be added but never subtracted.

Even the creator of the GDP Simon Kuznets in a 1934 report to the US Congress acknowledged the GDP's flaws as an economic indicator, "The welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measure of national income. If the GDP is up, why is America down? Distinctions must be kept in mind between quantity and quality of growth. Goals for more growth should specify more growth of what and for what."

freethoughtpedia.com...

We have a great thread that was done last year on how the GDP figures were easily manipulated.

Can Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Figures be Trusted?

globalpolitician.com...

Washington Manipulation of GDP Data to Hide Recessions

www.marketoracle.co.uk...

Economy in Recession? More Liberal Lies?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by mmiichael
Russia has had a mercurial rise to solvency and belligerence based on oil being the biggest game in the world and themselves having more than anyone else.

Russia does not have more oil than anyone else but they have invested more than most in exploiting their reserves.

The sudden plummet of world oil prices from appraching $150 a barrel to 25% of that in a few months has revealed the shaky gorunds they really are on.

It has reemphasized that the international economic order can be used isolate and attack certain stock exchanges or countries at will. Russia does not only export energy and the majority of growth has been in non energy sectors of the economy.

Their military is desperately in need of upgrading, they have virtually no control of their eastern frontiers any more, health and social issues, early death, alcoholism, drug usage, are at disastrous level.

Their military is not in any more desperate need of upgrading than is the US one after five years of constant low intensity conflict. In fact i would much rather take five odd years of relative neglect ( late 90's ) than five years of constant usage under war time conditions. As for the 'no control' of their eastern frontiers there aren't a few tens of millions of Mexicans living in Russia.

As you accurately state the Russian state isn't dealing very well, or rather not trying, with the numerous social problems that resulted from the implementation of neo liberal robber baron type privatization and general predatory economics. Having said that last i checked their higher education institutions are training per population size more people than any other western European ( including the US) state. Sure the Russian state are losing poorer citizens at a rather large rate but i wouldn't go as far as to suggest that this is a serious threat or even problem for their economy.

All the oil revenues are skimmed off the top to go into expansionist political programs and influence peddling.

Nonsense. Ever heard of their quite massive economic stabilization fund?

Since then, Russia has grown at a real terms average of 7 per cent a year. In 2007, growth hit 8.1 per cent - higher than the year before, despite the US-originated sub-prime crisis that has hobbled much of the world.

Russia's reserves have ballooned from practically zero in 1998 to $480bn (£242bn) today - the third largest haul on earth. The country is now almost debt-free - with a budget surplus of 6 per cent of GDP, and a trade surplus almost twice as much again.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

The Russian economy may not grow much in 2009 ( 3% instead of the expected 8-9%) but a recession is unlikely for at least this year.

The countries financial reserves are dwindling, their stock market has been decimated, their currency is worthless.

So is Brazil's and i could name a few others. Fact is 2008 was bad very most countries and we will get a better idea of the true winners and losers in 2009.

Only their natural resources keep them afloat but barely

No more so than is the case for the US which had a absolutely massive deficit in 2008. Why we should expect Russia to do economically so much worse, other than the fact that the US can intimidate and use economic and military means to do so, than the US which have NO foreign currency reserves in excess of debt i really wonder.

If any major world player is going under in 2010 it looks like Russia.


Mike F

About as likely as a US 'breakup' into various 'independent' states. How this guy came up with this theory i have no idea...

Stellar

As I searched ATS for treats on Igor Panarin I realized that this is "old news"

so...

Why is this suddenly a headline news story in Europe today?
(this is a dutch article)
www.deredactie.be...

to translate a sentence:

In his book, Panarin compares president Barack Obama with the lastest Sovjetleader, Michail Gorbatsjov.

reply to post by GypsK


I remember debating this on another site about a year ago. Maybe they put it as a headline news story because it's getting closer to 2010.

I don't know. They seem to recycle stories all the time.

wait.. i'm part of MEXICO? that's it, get the kids, we're moving to virginia.