2010 and the dissolving USA

[Arcesious]

Bad things happen every single day, and yet the world still keeps turning.

[mimartin]

Hmm. Comments anyone? mimartin? Sam D.? S.D. Nihil? Tobias Reiper?

Somehow this rings false to me. I last visited Texas in 2001, so it could have become heavily Mexican in that time period. I thought Mexico wasn't in much a position to take anything over?

The article writer obliviously never meet a Texan. It would take a lot of dead Texans for something like this to happen and heritage means nothing. I have a lot of friends that are of Hispanic decent and they are just as proud to be a Texan. More likely, it would be Mexico under Austin’s influence.

[Web Rider]

Facts are good. Nearing perhaps was not the correct word, but you may accept/prefer "approaching" "on the road" "plummeting". These are perhaps better descriptives, but not that different really. It is over-alarmist to say nearing at this time, so I concede that point.

No, it really isn't. Listen to some non-marxist economists. The US dollar, while not as strong as it has been in the past, is still doing quite well. And it it not "plummeting", nor is it "on the road", and neither is it "approaching". Many countries still court both US favor and money, that along with US military, social, and economic power and dominance ensure that the US currency will not just "drop off".

 

If you think that the US is still the pre-eminent power, and that the position is unshakeable, you are a fanboy.

I can readily think one, and not the other. The US is still a pre-eminent world power, one with which only a few others can hope or even attempt to compare with. Of course the position is shakeable, no position isn't. But just because it is, does not mean that those who are close have the desire to take it. And even if they wanted to, it is more probable that what would result is a multi-polar world, likely of China-US, then China-Russia-US, then China-India-Russia-US, and then China-EU-India-Russia-US.

[Darth Avlectus]

Hey, whoa guys. Ehh, I think most forumites here are under no illusions about a position and its solidity.

 

So far as America not being #1 in the world anymore: everything hangs in the balance and nothing is for sure about that, *yet*. Moreover I don't quite see how U.S.A. somehow sliding down even to #5 in the world would necessarily mean we give up chunks of our land. Besides, if there is one thing I notice even about American underachievers, they may get shaken down but they aren't contentious for no reason and are persistent and tenacious enough to find a way back up. Sure, Americans are apathetic right now but it wouldn't take too much for too long before we started back on track and gained momentum behind it.

 

*Are* we on a decline? Sure. We're in trouble right now and only an idiot would deny that. In several years it'll pick back up again and the worst of the recession will be behind us. It may take 20 or 30 years for things to come back completely. By then we quite possibly may not be #1, but I seriously doubt USA will crash and burn because of it.

 

China IMO is biding their time and getting all it can to try to tip the world currency to theirs and away from the U.S.A. I find that as a challenge to be met, not a fate to be dreaded.

 

Isn't it rather amusing meanwhile that people like this professor have nothing to do but obsess all day about our demise?

[Tommycat]

Hrmph. I grew up in Texas. The idea of Texas under Mexican rule is absolutely laughable. Three words come to mind. "Remember The Alamo!" I could see Texas as it's own nation. I can see Texas as part of the (remaining) US. But Texas as part of Mexico? FAT CHANCE! Too many Texans died to free themselves from Mexico. I mean really this guy must have never met a Texan in his life. They are more than proud of the state.

[Totenkopf]

Funny thing about the idea of TX under Mexico's "wing" is that Mexico is so dysfuntional that perhaps it ought to be the other way around. I think the guy is right about America heading into a world of economic hurt, but the rest of it sounds a bit like a KGB man's wet dream. Of course, if Russia got AK, you can be pretty sure they'd have no problem drilling the oil. The rest of the world be damned.....

[vanir]

The US is economically far stronger than the USSR was. What you are feeling now is the economic pinch of frivolous defence expenditure throughout the Cold War, which destroyed the Soviet Union as a political powerbase (it is still a major world power and a formiddable one under the umbrella of the CIS and Supreme Soviet controlled strategic capability).

 

Throughout the 90's US defence expenditure was still in the thousands of millions per individual project, aside unit cost and any hope of cost recovery. This is what funded your F-22 and F-35, in effect the SuperHornet is a mild attempt at cost recovery (strictly speaking it's overpriced but is a good enough product to justify the cost).

 

What has happened since then is cost recovery projects in Europe and the Asia-Pacific have completely fallen apart. At least 15,000-million US dollars were expected to be partially recovered with Block 50/60 F-16 and new F-35 sales which never materialised. The Europeans went and built something better themselves, and the Russians have been selling Flankers and Fulcrums and rock bottom prices...incredibly this is something which completely slipped the minds of US defence/economy analysts back in the 90's.

 

You see nobody really expected the USSR to collapse economically in 1991 except the KGB (whom were well aware of this course since 1980), so nobody figured into the equation that an economically smashed Soviet Union would be selling its latest military hardware at affordable prices, much cheaper than US material yet with comparable performance. And buying US isn't any guarantee of product support unless certain trade agreements are made (capitalists to the end). Updates are also ridiculously expensive, where Russian updates are cheap or free.

 

It is in fact this "economic altruism" of communist thought which forms a cultural base in the CIS and many Asiatic regions. Not entirely sound business wise, but given appropriate circumstances can be confounding.

 

The Euro has basically gotten stronger whilst the US dollar has degraded. The pound has remained fairly consistent, but the biggest impact has been the growth of the Euro, this is expected since the EU has been growing in member nations from the Atlantic seaboard to the Caspian Sea.

The role of the US as the primary defence contractor in Europe has disappeared completely, whilst as a primary industrial power has been degraded by development in Asia and throughout Europe.

 

I do not think the US will economically collapse immediately, but the cultural lifestyle and strict capitalist theme is based strongly in consumerism and this necessarily has to change or the place will end up looking like Russia does today, which trust me isn't too pretty.

 

You're way in the red, most of your defence expenditure through the 90's did as much damage to your economy as that of the USSR in the 80's, you're just a little more resilient to begin with so you're feeling it later and more gradually. It's going to get worse before it gets better though. Check out the costs and appropriations of just one of those defence projects like the Raptor, or having whole fleets of supercarriers in service, no less than five independent military organisations plus support and logistics, and domestic industrial empires built on defence contracting.

 

You've already shot yourselves in the foot just like the Russians did, now you're in an ambulance on the way to the hospital is all.

[purifier]

Funny thing about the idea of TX under Mexico's "wing" is that Mexico is so dysfuntional that perhaps it ought to be the other way around. I think the guy is right about America heading into a world of economic hurt, but the rest of it sounds a bit like a KGB man's wet dream. Of course, if Russia got AK, you can be pretty sure they'd have no problem drilling the oil. The rest of the world be damned.....

 

 

I agree, especially the "economic hurt"...no doubt as far as that's concerned, only I think it could eventually lead to at least a insurrection if anything. But I really think the guy is just blowing smoke up our butt's or trying to start a lot of controversy amongst us here in the U.S.A. for the most part, or at least he thinks he is.

 

It's obvious that the rest of the info that he presents is bogus, take the map for instance: I think he's played the board game of RISK one friggin' too many times in his lifetime over there, I'd say his map looks like a mickey mouse version of the real board game.

 

Example:

Look familar? (Btw, I call 1 and 4 *purifier shakes dice in hand* Muhahahhahahahaha! World Domination! Who dares to tread on me!)

 

 

 

Seriously though, I don't think our economic situation is going to get any better as long as we are under the current elective (people) government.

Which could seriously piss some people off and cause an uprising or something, there has been talk of it in certain social circles and even on the internet at that; which is the most idiotic thing to do IMO, it's not like the government dosen't check for that sort of thing with their search database computers.

 

Anyway, that dosen't mean anything though, just people talking and complaining I guess. Better yet, like I said before:

 

But nothing is a sure bet, yet anything can happen. [/Quote]

[Jae Onasi]

Look familar? (Btw, I call 1 and 4 *purifier shakes dice in hand* Muhahahhahahahaha! World Domination! Who dares to tread on me!)

You, sir, play a Risky Game.

[purifier]

You, sir, play a Risky Game.

 

 

Lol...no ma'am, more like "Delusions of Grandeur." Wouldn't you agree?

[vanir]

The Russian economist in question is also quite a way off on his appraisal of the Russian economy, which mirrors its political instability.

The CIS is still definitely feeling the effects of Soviet collapse and none more acutely than Russia (and the Ukraine), what has been holding Russia together are twofold issues of organised criminal activity among leadership and independent command of the military districts, which remain firmly in the hands of the Supreme Soviet and act quite outside the control of the Russian Parliament. The wars in Georgia for example conflagurated directly against the instructions and assurances of the Parliament (who supported the unified Georgian state, whilst the Supreme Soviet had strategic interests in military bases there and thus funded the pro-Soviet Abkhasian bid for independence, a move unsupported by NATO or the UN).

 

Essentially this is what is going on in Russia, where instead of the two pronged powerbases in the peripherary CIS nations (the Supreme Soviet being based in Russia), they are instead divided by nationalist uprising and splintered political representation.

Thus the improved economic stability speculated of Russia in recent years is in fact an illusion fostered by increasing troubles at its borders, and the more institutionalised nature of Russian political woes than surrounding territories.

 

Make no mistake that in terms of average quality of life, Russia is impoverished, with shocking crime rates in particular of violent crime and organised crime, and a relatively low value for common human life. Their industry sells better quality equipment on the export market than it does locally, including defence industry. The politicians and corporate figures however, are the modern Czars for the most part and individual district commanders the aristocracy.

According to local journalists the Soviets are alive and well, and little has changed if not for the worst.

[Darth Avlectus]

Bleh. So essentially we have Soviet Nationalists stirring it up over there that just so happen to sell good merchandise despite (or in spite of) its poor state of affairs that aren't quite dire yet. Are they on their way back?

 

If we're going to feel it smoother, slower, and more gradually then will it be anywhere as bad? I ask b/c I have little faith in things so far as politics and economic lifestyles go. I agree that we need to stop doing "stuff" for "stuff" sake. However, it's not *just* defense. It's lifestyle and all that. Fiscal and financial responsibility are often given lip service, but rarely seen acted upon by politicians or citizens in general. "Put this or that on credit and it'll all be fine" so says people. I've little hope, personally.

 

Sadly, I can see only a few solutions:

America lowers its standards for worker conditions; lowers its minimum wages; or the U.S. ends up absorbing other countries and playing around a lot with uneven playfields in a more real sense (as opposed to empty money) in order to restrengthen industries. Or all the above. Unless there is something I missed.

 

Fat chance people are going to change their habits unless we collectively got hit over the head with a cactus...which I sadly do not see happening in the near future by any sense of the concept. It takes a common disaster with a fast hard hit to unite people--that is fact. However, *that* would be the last thing we'd need, or so it would seem. Crap.

[vanir]

Well the state of Russian industry is such that US multinationals like Elron speculate they could improve oil production from the CIS Caspian table by several hundred percent, that the Russians are essentially wasting up to 90% of possible oil/fuels production with administrative disarray and poor industry.

 

The fact Elron and other multinational oil companies are all over Afghanistan and central Asia along with the US military is of deep concern to the Russians, and it the real reason for anti-American sentiments there. And it's not just them, Turkey doesn't like you much either, or the Ukrainians.

You see they firmly believe you're moving chess pieces against Iran and around Afghanistan in order to do the same thing you did with the Persian Gulf. Take the Caspian oil table for yourselves under the cover up of "international policing."

 

Now the thing about this is they still have a massive Cold War surplus of strategic nuclear capability, the delapidation of their conventional forces has no bearing on this. Any individual district commander could at a whim lay waste to roughly half the planet, and they don't have the same Presidential/Congressional safeguards against subordinate commanders ordering nuclear release that the US does.

 

Make them paranoid enough and you've got WW3 on your hands. It will be the Clancy style "rogue General" who sends a hundred planet busting warheads into US airspace, probably the Transcaucasus district commander who started the Georgian war.

 

Meanwhile the US economic situation has forced national interests in central Asia...

 

European journalists claim the current east-west political climate is in fact more dangerously close to a large scale nuclear exchange today that at any time during the Cold War. This time it is the US whom would have to back down, and nobody in the world believes the Whitehouse or Pentagon are capable of that, particularly given recent international "anti-terrorism" policies which are a thin veil for flagrant human rights violation.

 

Did you know the United States government is charged by the International Court of human rights violation (specifically regarding "special rendition" policies and Gitmo). The Whitehouse refuses to answer the charges on the basis doing so would force the US to reveal classified material. It's the same thing as saying the rest of the world is subordinate to United States culture and government.

 

It is this attitude which is destroying your economy. Nobody who doesn't have to wants to import anything from you anymore, your markets are now third world nations and all you get in return is conflict diamonds, useless treaties and credit slips. Yet still you are the world's most eminent consumerists, any American will buy a Playstation well before he gives a loaf of bread to a vagrant. This is killing you.

[Totenkopf]

The US is economically far stronger than the USSR was. What you are feeling now is the economic pinch of frivolous defence expenditure throughout the Cold War, which destroyed the Soviet Union as a political powerbase (it is still a major world power and a formiddable one under the umbrella of the CIS and Supreme Soviet controlled strategic capability).

 

Actually, what the US is feeling the pinch of is not "frivolous defense spending from the Cold War", but horrible mismanagement of entitlement programs and their expenses. Tearing down the "firewall" between SS and the general fund over 40 years ago has resulted in Congress going on a spending spree with no aim other than re-election. No attempt was made during that time to make sure there'd be money available when the baby boomers started dipping into SS. Defense spending in the US has typically been ~6 to 8% of GDP/GNP, while for the Russians it was 3-4 times higher. Had the US spent that kind of a % of its GDP on defense, the Cold War might have ended a lot sooner, assuming it didn't wreck American finances in that timeframe.

[vanir]

Interesting and well calculated point Totenkopf, but the GDP defence spending is more reflective of national welfare policies than actual logistics. The Soviet and US defence procurement was roughly en par throughout the Cold War and where strategic and avionics development was concerned was higher in the US, backed by privatised contracting in an attempt to feed expenditure back into the economy.

Nevertheless US defence spending from the early 70's began relying heavily upon cost recovery programs. Every individual upgrade type was ridiculously expensive and ridiculously frequent.

The Soviets went the other road with downgraded exports instead of upgraded indigenous models. The total cost of the counter air defence and strategic air defence districts for example were still similar to the combined FX and LFX programs which produced the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 fighters with a lower development cost, even though many more aircraft were procured by the Russians for the same cost. The problem was the Soviets didn't privatise and their economic system didn't allow for much in the way of cost recovery.

 

Where this gets muted is by the 90's, when Europe stopped buying American and the rest of the world got better Russian models cheaper. You can get a MiG-29A for the cost of an F-16A and according to the Luftwaffe it's as good as an F-16C Block 50 on any day of the week. That model is actually more expensive and has still been superseded by the newer Block 55 (which finally has a helmet designator).

 

Had the US spent as much of its GDP as the Soviets on defence budget, it is because of the capitalist economic system that it would've disentegrated long before the Soviets did. Money you spend on contracting, privatisation and social welfare support the Russians never needed to, the benefits were granted outside the standing economy.

 

Where the Soviets fell down was in empire. The US makes a trade partner and it creates industrialist opportunities whilst gradually infusing itself into the local political culture.

When the Russians did this, they invaded full scale on day one with the military, then took the new Satellite's welfare and resource concerns upon their own shoulders. Each of the Satellite states thus sapped Russian economics and resources rather than promoted industrialism and profiteering.

 

This is what has been mostly changed since the Soviet breakup, all CIS leaders are now essentially big time capitalist industrialists to the extent of organised crime bosses, or are insane nationalists fully halfway on the road to Hitler.

It's like having Al Capone win the war against organised crime in the thirties.

 

That period roughly 1988-98 marked phenonemal defence expenditure in the US for a political climate which no longer exists, with no chance of cost recovery, and it was cost recovery projections which governed defence spending at that time.

It is highly likely this was the primary reasoning for the Gulf War.

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

@Qui_Gon_Glenn: o rly?

Your post, and your link, provide nothing in the way of argument. Surely, you can do better. GDP is a nice economists measurement, but it is a macro measurement, and leaves out a lot of important details.

 

@Web Rider - thank you for understanding the logical operator AND in my sentence. I threw that in their to see who might bite, and either to my dismay or great joy, most everyone understood how that works.

 

Not much to add, I am quite gloomy these days, and I'd rather not share it too much.

 

For those that are interested, I can provide a link to the site my mother got her side of this story from. I will not put it in this post - it is a damned pay site, pay-per-divination! That deserves a thread all its own :facepalm:

[urluckyday]

Just a question of context Qui_gon...

 

How long have these conversations between you and your mother been going on? And I'm being serious...so don't confuse this with sarcasm.

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

My mother has been interested in the occult since, uh, forever I guess. We have been discussing Earth changes since probably the early nineties - we were ahead of the Y2K curve a fair amount

 

I have been in spiritual conflict with God and myself most of my life, and all of it that I can recollect fully. Life can do that to you sometimes, or maybe I was just born with a dim brain that is too deep. As a result, I am an agnostic leaning atheist, yet reserve some space for the possibility of a creator and an unknown. There is too much mystery for me, even in this age of science, to completely shut the door on the divine, albeit I have certainly shrugged off the major religion's conception of God as poorly thought out man-made mind-control. Well, I digress.

 

As for 2012 stuff, having known about the Mayans and their long count since the early 90s, I have looked at 2012 for quite some time, with great interest. Mostly because I hope to see something happen that is meaningful in my lifetime - I look at our modern society as pathetically shallow, full of sheep, with a few wicked shepherds, needing something major to either wake us up or deservingly wipe us out.

 

I look at the 2012 stuff from a purely scientific standpoint, which still leaves plenty of room for bad potentialities (of course, will the sun rise tomorrow?), but at least is grounded in things tangible to me, ie: the cosmic alignment. Being primarily atheistic in my views, my mother and I look at things from quite opposite perspectives, she being highly New Age sprititual, a believer in all sorts of outlandish things, from aliens to Indigo children to... the FORCE. (couldn't resist)

 

We make good counterparts - we look at the same problems, and see very different causes or justifications or elements. I think her POV provides me with good pause - some of the New Age stuff just sounds cool, and would be wonderful were it to be true. Also, a lot of it is written well, by intelligent people who can make strong arguments. Not perfect, but I don't see a lot of perfect arguments.

 

To answer your question, urluckyday, conversations of this sort have been happening since I first read the Lord of the Rings as a ten year old, way back in 82.

[urluckyday]

^Well how long have you and your mother had discussions about the "dissolving of the US" because through the 90's the US was for the most part in the midst of a surplus? I'm just trying to understand when these thoughts and ideas originally occurred...

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

Ok, sorry, misunderstood you. Specifically on this subject, we only spoke about it a day or two before the OP, then I found that goofy Russian's WSJ article. I guess we only spoke about it then, and only in that I found it highly interesting and unusual that a scientist, even if I am using that title broadly, came to nearly identical conclusions to the far-out crowd.

 

I have discussed Earth changes with mum for many years, and there are many maps to look at that show a dissolving US - google "Earth change map", there is abundance. Those maps were to be caused by natural phenomena alone, like quakes and volcanoes, yet are not wholly dissimilar to the maps that came out in the recent discussion.

[urluckyday]

All I am saying is that is it possible that this paranoia that you seem to feel (if I'm wrong I'm not meaning to offend) is simply due to the news that we are exposed to everyday? War, Bad Economy, Corruption, etc.

 

Members of every generation since the beginning of time have thought they were the last to inhabit this Earth b/c the world would end before anyone else could. It's not uncommon to see people fearing the downfall of civilization when all they are fed throughout the day is bad news.

 

I'm not saying that it's impossible to have people predicting the dissolving of the US during the times of prosperity, but I do think it's much more likely that these conversations sprout due to the fact that people do not understand the changing world around them OR they are disillusioned by the news that they hear.

 

I'm not meaning to call anyone out or anything like that, but I am considering that people turn to what they know best in times of "chaos" and assume the worst and that is the US which has stood as a superpower and a global economic force to be reckoned with and assume that it will follow the same path that other nations had followed.

 

Throughout however many recessions we have had...people predict doom for this country. This is no different. Recession = stress = radical ideas and predictions.

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

Not taking anything away from your post, and no offence taken either - you are quite civil.

 

Your points are fair, yet I would say at my age I am a little more immune to that kind of seeping paranoia - I have seen lots of ups and downs.

 

The topic was brought up due to the odd confluence of the discussion followed by the reading, which is an odd coincidence, even in this age of noids.

 

However, there are factors economically and socially that make 2010 interesting whether we blow up or not. And, I must share this, although you may know it, as I have posted it here several times...

 

The average life of a State is 300 years, State meaning single-form government. Corruption is insidious, and people can only take so much. Are US citizens ready for massive revolt? Uh, er, not anytime soon, too many mamzy pamzys. Yet, look what happened in New Orleans after Katrina. 9 days = civilization shredded.

[Jedi_Man]

I have a high doubt this will happen. Look, just because i predict that The middle East with all throw aside their differences ( already an impossibility) and that they'll all join to destroy israel (no ones that good, not anymore), does not mean that will happen. If, the united states were to seperate, some outer country would have to have been involved. And what the russian guy said, I have a good feeling which one. Alaska would not go to russia. If any russian force even stepped on that land, we'd more than likely to one last join together to make sure russia goes back to the dark ages and doesn't even think about attacking america, mainland or not. And if i'm wrong, The alaskans are BA enough to hold their own land. Hawaii would more than likely got to japan though. Regrettably, they have to small a population to hold a big enough military force to take on japan. Besides, where'd they get their spam from if they're their own country. But, hey, if this happens (which it won't) you can come over and watch me eat my shoe. No lie, i'll post my address and when ya'll get here, I'll eat my shoe.

[ForeverNight]

Alright, I'll throw this out there, q_g_g: the Mayan calender only goes into a new cycle, it doesn't end in 2012 like many, many, many people have claimed. Also, this Russian guy seems like a crackpot if you want my honest opinion.

 

I'll just quote what I said earlier:

 

Unless this guy's name is Hari Seldon I think he's just blowing air and making waves hoping for his 15 minutes of fame.

 

Edit: Figured I should respond to glenn's points:

 

GDP, while not the end-all, be-all measurement, is a good benchmark to compare the general wealth and economic force of a country. If you look at the chart, the US has the highest GDP by far compared to the rest of the world.

 

Did you even read the second link?

[urluckyday]

Not taking anything away from your post, and no offence taken either - you are quite civil.

 

Your points are fair, yet I would say at my age I am a little more immune to that kind of seeping paranoia - I have seen lots of ups and downs.

 

The topic was brought up due to the odd confluence of the discussion followed by the reading, which is an odd coincidence, even in this age of noids.

 

However, there are factors economically and socially that make 2010 interesting whether we blow up or not. And, I must share this, although you may know it, as I have posted it here several times...

 

The average life of a State is 300 years, State meaning single-form government. Corruption is insidious, and people can only take so much. Are US citizens ready for massive revolt? Uh, er, not anytime soon, too many mamzy pamzys. Yet, look what happened in New Orleans after Katrina. 9 days = civilization shredded.

 

Well it's easy to see any kind of chaos when all forms of police units and law enforcement not to mention politics are washed away. Without water, electricity, or shelter there are obviously going to be problems. However, a country filled with corruption doesn't collapse to the point where people automatically go crazy and loot left and right.