Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Will the recent US gov't spending and the growing unemploymet rate coupled with the federal reserve's actions along with the treasury's printing of over 300% more dollars lead to stagflation in the next three years. If so, how will this affect the current recession. Forget the analyists' and pundints, what do YOU think our chances our of a global depression? Furthermore, what are things like in your part of the world in contrast to the generalized reports coming from whatever news outlet you watch.
What do you think the UE rate will top out at or has it already? Do you think the mark to market change will make a difference in the Stock Market? Would the threatened "Uptick Rule" re-institution make any difference in the current state of the economy? What would your suggestions be to fix the mess? Finally, can you kill a Zombie bank by shooting it in the head?

Originally posted by tsscls
Forget the analyists' and pundints

~hysterical~ People can't and don't think for themselves like that.



Anyway, my part of the world is doing awesome.

our banks refused a bailout

Originally posted by inimalist
our banks refused a bailout

Hooray! Prepare to have your nation purchased by China.

I think the trillion plus dollars they just basically printed will have serious ramifications during the next couple years. Look for inflation to rise sharply and oil prices to skyrocket again due to the weakening dollar

Michigan is the worst state in this economy.

It's like we are living in a depression.

It's funny that everyones acting like it's a huge deal that we are in such national debt. Our nation has always been in huge debt. We're not going poor by any means. Our GDP as a nation is 14 trillion dollars. The next closest country is japan with 4 trillion (to put that in perspective we spend 1trillion just for our military). We are by no means a poor nation, we just waste our money. We need to learn to spend responsibly and we would not be in such hard times.

If there's anyone out there with a good grasp of economics, what is the point of printing more currency? You can't actually create more value in the world, it seems like it's just a way to provide moral support.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If there's anyone out there with a good grasp of economics, what is the point of printing more currency? You can't actually create more value in the world, it seems like it's just a way to provide moral support.
There's no real point in currency anyway. But yea here you go. This should help you out:

http://money.howstuffworks.com/currency9.htm

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
There's no real point in currency anyway.

Communist!

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
But yea here you go. This should help you out:

http://money.howstuffworks.com/currency9.htm

Thx.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
~hysterical~ People can't and don't think for themselves like that.



Anyway, my part of the world is doing awesome.
What part of the World are you in? I was unaware of anywhere doing awesome at the moment?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If there's anyone out there with a good grasp of economics, what is the point of printing more currency? You can't actually create more value in the world, it seems like it's just a way to provide moral support.

getting ready for deflation?

Crazy deflation, more pay cuts, inflated tax policies. ugh.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Hooray! Prepare to have your nation purchased by China.

??

like the way they own all your debt?

Originally posted by inimalist
??

like the way they own all your debt? No, see, China is GOING TO buy you...it ALREADY owns the US.

Do you see the difference?

Originally posted by inimalist
??

like the way they own all your debt?
They only own like 400 billion in U.S. debt. Japan actually owns more of our debt, but we have a much better relationship with them so it's not that big of a deal. Also, as far as our debt to China, we are their biggest exporter. So where as we do owe them about 400 billion we also make up almost 20% of their GDP. So when it comes down to it the only reason they bought any of our debt was because if our country suddenly tanked so would theirs (and most everyone else).

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
It's funny that everyones acting like it's a huge deal that we are in such national debt. Our nation has always been in huge debt.

I assume you are referring to national debt as a relative function of GDP. Right? Pre-1900, wasn't the Federal budget better managed?


If you're talking about debt in terms of equivalency by time ($2 is $5 today..etc.), then I still think pre 1900s, the Federal budget was "better" managed.

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
We're not going poor by any means. Our GDP as a nation is 14 trillion dollars.

True. Per capita income is like...$47,000 or more per person. Quite a bit.

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
The next closest country is japan with 4 trillion (to put that in perspective we spend 1trillion just for our military).

US military spending is like, $650 billion.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/defense.pdf

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
We are by no means a poor nation, we just waste our money.

You, sir, are correct beyond all doubt. Now that Americans are starting to save it, it's got creditor's panties in a wad. It's retarded because Americans are still not saving near enough. If they saved enough, I wouldn't have to pay for their SS checks...and, instead, could be saving more for my own retirement.

I checked my finance behavorial patterns. I pump lot's of my own money into this country. Where is my fair slice, Obama? (lol, campaign rhetoric joke.)

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
We need to learn to spend responsibly and we would not be in such hard times.

I fully agree with you.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I assume you are referring to national debt as a relative function of GDP. Right? Pre-1900, wasn't the Federal budget better managed?


If you're talking about debt in terms of equivalency by time ($2 is $5 today..etc.), then I still think pre 1900s, the Federal budget was "better" managed.



True. Per capita income is like...$47,000 or more per person. Quite a bit.



US military spending is like, $650 billion.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/defense.pdf



You, sir, are correct beyond all doubt. Now that Americans are starting to save it, it's got creditor's panties in a wad. It's retarded because Americans are still not saving near enough. If they saved enough, I wouldn't have to pay for their SS checks...and, instead, could be saving more for my own retirement.

I checked my finance behavorial patterns. I pump lot's of my own money into this country. Where is my fair slice, Obama? (lol, campaign rhetoric joke.)



I fully agree with you.
The amount we spend on our defense budget is 650 billion. If you factor in what gets spent for research in development it comes up to a trillion. The numbers for military r&d can be found from the records of the energy department. I also added in veterans affairs and whatnot since that's defense related.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
The amount we spend on our defense budget is 650 billion. If you factor in what gets spent for research in development it comes up to a trillion. The numbers for military r&d can be found from the records of the energy department. I also added in veterans affairs and whatnot since that's defense related.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

Well, WHY didn't you say so?



I was nitpicking, really. When someone says "military budget" it is just that to me. When someone says "R&D budget" it is just that. When someone says "total government operational costs" it is just that.


Your post was right on. I have this weird OCD thing about numbers. they have to be right, or in the general vicinity.

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
They only own like 400 billion in U.S. debt. Japan actually owns more of our debt, but we have a much better relationship with them so it's not that big of a deal. Also, as far as our debt to China, we are their biggest exporter. So where as we do owe them about 400 billion we also make up almost 20% of their GDP. So when it comes down to it the only reason they bought any of our debt was because if our country suddenly tanked so would theirs (and most everyone else).

No. China IS the biggest owner of US debt with almost quater of all debt owing to China. And you owe them over 700 billion.

US Treasury Department - http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

Obama seeks $83.4 billion in special war money

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_war_costs

Don't worry guys, we will be saving so much money after Obama ends these wars.


Wait..****.

You do realize that immediate withdrawal was never the plan, right? Funding is still necessary.

Also, the WMDs have to be there, need money to keep up the search, your boy Bush will be redeemed!

Originally posted by Robtard


Also, the WMDs have to be there, need money to keep up the search, your boy Bush will be redeemed!

they must be, Obama is still there searching for them.

Maybe they are in Pakistan? Lets check Obama!

And yes withdrawal will take a while..but we will just leave a 'security' force of 50,000 soldiers there.

Right.

Originally posted by KidRock
they must be, Obama is still there searching for them.

Maybe they are in Pakistan? Lets check Obama!

And yes withdrawal will take a while..but we will just leave a 'security' force of 50,000 soldiers there.

Right.
We have more than that in places that we haven't been recently occupying after a war with them. So yea 50k is pretty much just a security force...

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
We have more than that in places that we haven't been recently occupying after a war with them. So yea 50k is pretty much just a security force...

But I thought Obama was pulling the troops out?

Originally posted by KidRock
But I thought Obama was pulling the troops out?

He is...from Iraq to Afghanistan. It's a ''change''.

Originally posted by KidRock
they must be, Obama is still there searching for them.

Maybe they are in Pakistan? Lets check Obama!

And yes withdrawal will take a while..but we will just leave a 'security' force of 50,000 soldiers there.

Right.

Your ignorance knows no bounds.

60+ years later, we're still in Germany and Japan, why don't you cry about that too, Cpt. All-American. Those forces are planned to be dwindled in time too, even the Bush admin claimed this, though fell epically short on their time-line(s).

You're crying about Obama way too early, give it some time, I'm sure you'll have valid tears then. Only imagine what you'll be like 3 years from now.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
He is...from Iraq to Afghanistan. It's a ''change''.

Which is what America should have done in the very first place, if the "War on Terror" was going to be fought.

Quench my curiosity, why the hostility towards Obama, at least so soon into his term?

Originally posted by Robtard
Quench my curiosity, why the hostility towards Obama, at least so soon into his term?

Though her comment was "smart", she has a point.


It is "change". It is also good change, for the most part. That's where we should have been in the first place. However, I'm of the opinion that "being there" is one of the reasons we get into terror in the first place. (The Kingdom hits on this concept quite well. It is "terror" for both sides, depending on the perspective.) If were were more of a centristic country, helping only those who ask, avoiding "Police action" (is police action even in the constitution for the President?) where possible, I'm sure we would wouldn't be the target of almost any terror attacks. And think of all the money we could spend on domestic problems, all the money saved, and how nice and neat our budget would be.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Though her comment was "smart", she has a point.


It is "change". It is also good change, for the most part. That's where we should have been in the first place. However, I'm of the opinion that "being there" is one of the reasons we get into terror in the first place. (The Kingdom hits on this concept quite well. It is "terror" for both sides, depending on the perspective.) If were were more of a centristic country, helping only those who ask, avoiding "Police action" (is police action even in the constitution for the President?) where possible, I'm sure we would wouldn't be the target of almost any terror attacks. And think of all the money we could spend on domestic problems, all the money saved, and how nice and neat our budget would be.
The only problem with us not stepping in is that no one else will. The real question is whether or not the violence would be any more or any less if no one stepped in to help. Giving the regions track record with human rights violations and wholesale slaughtering of innocent people I'd imagine probably not.

Why should we be stepping in if no one asks for help and we aren't being threatened?

While I do lean to the "let countries sort out their own shit" mentality, the poorer (and more ****ed up ones) are that way because of the richer ones meddling with the scurry for resources, many a time. So it's probably the least 'we' can do.

Though part of me truly wishes America was more like (eg) Russia, **** over other countries for profit and not bother putting on the aires of philanthropy.

Yea people don't want us interfering, but they still want our money. If you want billions of dollars in supplies and whatnot then be ready to accept our attempts are stabilizing the area. We give around 800 billion dollars in foreign aide (food, equipment and all that). We could really use that here in the U.S. right now, so yea I'm all about us not getting involved with other places. Then when people start starving to death (even more than they already are) and more and more extremist start popping up in response to their dire situation who will step up then?

I say China, they have no problem mass killing their own civilians and couldn't care less what the worlds thinks of them, so they're the perfect position to deal with those "extremist".

Go ChiComs, Go!

Originally posted by Robtard
Your ignorance knows no bounds.

60+ years later, we're still in Germany and Japan, why don't you cry about that too, Cpt. All-American. Those forces are planned to be dwindled in time too, even the Bush admin claimed this, though fell epically short on their time-line(s).

You're crying about Obama way too early, give it some time, I'm sure you'll have valid tears then. Only imagine what you'll be like 3 years from now.

Because Obama didn't make claims that he would pull the troops out of Japan and Germany.

Obama didn't claim he would pull the troops out and leave 50,000 behind.

He said he would end the war and pull the troops out.

Building a permanent military base of 50,000 men in the Middle East is sure to improve relations. Troops will be dwindled over time? Yeah, lets see if Obama pulls through with this..so far everything else he said has been a lie.

If you cannot see it or choose not to admit it then that is your problem, but the guy is full of shit whether you want to believe it or not.

He may very well be completely full of shit, he's a politician after all, but that has yet to be seen in the few short months. He also has to face reality, once he stepped into office and started receiving intel on the state of world affairs.

Edit: You were always gun-ho for the war when Bush Co. was in charge, why are you shitting on Obama now for what you perceive as a continuance of the war? Sure, it'd be lie or half-truth from him, but it'd be what you were originally for.

Originally posted by KidRock
Because Obama didn't make claims that he would pull the troops out of Japan and Germany.

Obama didn't claim he would pull the troops out and leave 50,000 behind.

He said he would end the war and pull the troops out.

Building a permanent military base of 50,000 men in the Middle East is sure to improve relations. Troops will be dwindled over time? Yeah, lets see if Obama pulls through with this..so far everything else he said has been a lie.

If you cannot see it or choose not to admit it then that is your problem, but the guy is full of shit whether you want to believe it or not.
lol everything he's said has been a lie? Do you actually follow politics at all or are you just one of those "I hate Obama" people?
Here's some reading you need to do:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/President44/story?id=7042171&page=1

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
The only problem with us not stepping in is that no one else will. The real question is whether or not the violence would be any more or any less if no one stepped in to help. Giving the regions track record with human rights violations and wholesale slaughtering of innocent people I'd imagine probably not.

Well...because...

Screw it...


see below.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why should we be stepping in if no one asks for help and we aren't being threatened?

Gawd, you're sexy. flirt

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well...because...

Screw it...


see below.



Gawd, you're sexy. flirt
You do realize they ask for help right? They ask for U.S. money, food, and aid. So we're supposed to give them all of that without sending in military forces to protect those assets? And the reason the U.S. usually interferes is to try and stabilize an area. We like to have people we like in charge so that it serves our interest.

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
Yea people don't want us interfering, but they still want our money. If you want billions of dollars in supplies and whatnot then be ready to accept our attempts are stabilizing the area. We give around 800 billion dollars in foreign aide (food, equipment and all that). We could really use that here in the U.S. right now, so yea I'm all about us not getting involved with other places. Then when people start starving to death (even more than they already are) and more and more extremist start popping up in response to their dire situation who will step up then?

Humans have been sorting their shit out on their own terms for thousands of years.

Our government has a direct responsibility to it's people. Our healthcare system is lowest or one of the lowest, in almost every medical category assessment. (I have no idea what to call it...stop criticizing my shitty "articulation", bitches.)

I would certainly be happier if our medical and technology was focused on at home. Just think of the good we could do for other countries with the very same technologies we developed, both medical and otherwise, would do for other nations as well as our own, at a price. awesome You see, we have no moral or ethical obligation to any other country unless it benefits us.

Now, there are those that say we would lose in the long run if we didn't mettle in other countries business like we do. Really? Prove it.

They cite that it is an overall net increase in homeland security if we are up the asses of other nations all the time. I submit to you that if we withdrew all foreign troops, bases, etc., pulled them all home, fired half of them, and put the rest up for home defense and other domestic projects, our national security would increase tenfold and our military costs would significantly decrease.

And why shouldn't we? "We owe them this..." or "we owe them that" etc. As Schecter doesn't like to "hear", "f**k 'em." We have our own shit to worry about. How can we send thousands of our own young men to certain death when we have tens of thousands dying domestically when the mitigation of those domestic deaths are of almost linear ease?



If everyone would employ their "humanitarianism" domestically instead of abroad, then wouldn't life here improve so drastically that our abundance could then be spread, at the whims of the people and only the people, to foreign projects.

I guess this is what I'm REALLY trying to say:

The people should care more about their own country than other's and the government should only help other nations if all problems are virtually nonexistent. If our problems are virtually nonexistent, then we should aide* in only beneficial ways**.


Sometimes, shitty things happen. Sometimes, atrocious shit happens like genocide. Should we turn a blind eye to that? SURE! Only IF turning a blind eye doesn't affect us. Hoooooray!



*This is a Freudian slip, as it's called. I still have a nostalgic hard on for the medical world and really wish the stars would have aligned properly for a medical career...so I probably slip up more often than that: making subconscious references to the medical world, without knowing it.


**Beneficial could be something like...building an irrigation system in a foreign nation. Educating those that want it. Being doctors, engineers, etc., to those nations or communities that want it.



Lord Zenkai,

I think we agree on a vast majority of things. Do you see my perspective better now? Do you see the points illustrated and agree on some level?



Originally posted by LDHZenkai
You do realize they ask for help right? They ask for U.S. money, food, and aid. So we're supposed to give them all of that without sending in military forces to protect those assets? And the reason the U.S. usually interferes is to try and stabilize an area. We like to have people we like in charge so that it serves our interest.

Sure, I agree. We should help.

But only when we can afford it and it isn't taking away bread, literally, off of the table of our own people.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Humans have been sorting their shit out on their own terms for thousands of years.

Our government has a direct responsibility to it's people. Our healthcare system is lowest or one of the lowest, in almost every medical category assessment. (I have no idea what to call it...stop criticizing my shitty "articulation", bitches.)

I would certainly be happier if our medical and technology was focused on at home. Just think of the good we could do for other countries with the very same technologies we developed, both medical and otherwise, would do for other nations as well as our own, at a price. awesome You see, we have no moral or ethical obligation to any other country unless it benefits us.

Now, there are those that say we would lose in the long run if we didn't mettle in other countries business like we do. Really? Prove it.

They cite that it is an overall net increase in homeland security if we are up the asses of other nations all the time. I submit to you that if we withdrew all foreign troops, bases, etc., pulled them all home, fired half of them, and put the rest up for home defense and other domestic projects, our national security would increase tenfold and our military costs would significantly decrease.

And why shouldn't we? "We owe them this..." or "we owe them that" etc. As Schecter doesn't like to "hear", "f**k 'em." We have our own shit to worry about. How can we send thousands of our own young men to certain death when we have tens of thousands dying domestically when the mitigation of those domestic deaths are of almost linear ease?



If everyone would employ their "humanitarianism" domestically instead of abroad, then wouldn't life here improve so drastically that our abundance could then be spread, at the whims of the people and only the people, to foreign projects.

I guess this is what I'm REALLY trying to say:

The people should care more about their own country than other's and the government should only help other nations if all problems are virtually nonexistent. If our problems are virtually nonexistent, then we should aide* in only beneficial ways**.


Sometimes, shitty things happen. Sometimes, atrocious shit happens like genocide. Should we turn a blind eye to that? SURE! Only IF turning a blind eye doesn't affect us. Hoooooray!



*This is a Freudian slip, as it's called. I still have a nostalgic hard on for the medical world and really wish the stars would have aligned properly for a medical career...so I probably slip up more often than that: making subconscious references to the medical world, without knowing it.


**Beneficial could be something like...building an irrigation system in a foreign nation. Educating those that want it. Being doctors, engineers, etc., to those nations or communities that want it.



Lord Zenkai,

I think we agree on a vast majority of things. Do you see my perspective better now? Do you see the points illustrated and agree on some level?





Sure, I agree. We should help.

But only when we can afford it and it isn't taking away bread, literally, off of the table of our own people.

Oh sorry I made it seem different, but I do actually agree with your point of view on the situation. I was just posting as to the reason why the government continues on it's ways instead of adopting your idea. I think it would be much better to invest our money in fixing our country and perfecting a way of life, then once we have that we could help expand it to other places in need. If we spent as much as we do on war on finding clean fuels and whatnot, or on non-lethal defense, our country would be much better. We could also feed the poor in our country, shelter the homeless, provide free secondary education (or drastically reduce the cost), and so many other things.

Good debate! Points/counterpoints being made. This is how it should be. You guys rock!

we are in a mess..it will take a while for us to get out..even obama made a speech yesterday saying basically that its not over yet ..

Question. And probably a simple one.

Does the Fed (The Federal Reserve) print money or does the U.S. treasury print money. Cause I know that the Fed lends money to the U.S. gov't (with interest) but where does the Fed get the money. From the U.S. Treasury, right?

And secondly why would A U.S. gov't agency like the U.S. Treasury give money, if it does indeed print it, to a non-governmental private company/bank like The Fed, only for it to, in turn, re-give it back to the U.S. with interest, which the American taxpayer pays? I know that we work 4 to 5 months out of the year every year to pay this U.S. gov't debt. that's just wrong.

And thirdly why can't the U.S. gov't print currency and distribute it as the premier monetary entity rather than do it this nonsensical, and it would also eliminate the fed tax, the biggest cut your paycheck takes, i think.

And also, from what I understand, The Federal taxes taken (or extorted) from hard working Americans every week by the U.S. gov't in order to pay it's interest it owes to the Fed from the money it borrowed from this privately owned business, if i'm correct. But why would the gov't do this to it's own countrymen..

I heard somewhere that the there's nothing Federal about the Fed and there are no reserves.

I've also heard that there are not any reserves. We owe other countries too much money. We are not worth our weight on paper and printing more money will likely put us side by side with Mexico. Pay 100 dollars for a pack of cigarettes kind of stuff.

I've heard that the gold that backs our money has been gone a long time. That would make us "Owned by other countries," as we borrow from them as all countries borrow from each other, at least many do. It's a credit world of "Who owns who," and it plays out in politics as well.

We're still one of the richest countries in the world. And we still supply the other countries close to us on the list with around 40% of the GDP. So i don't see the U.S. going the way of Mexico any time in the near future, or distant for that matter. It's not like theres going to be any situation in which we were forced to pay back our national debt immediately. The other countries rely on us exporting their goods. Without that they would be around Mexico level.

We are the richest when we've over spent our credit?

Originally posted by Deja~vu
We are the richest when we've over spent our credit?

In terms of production America's sheer size makes it very wealthy, the debt just also makes us poor. Also remember that most other nations have some amount of debt too.

I did mention that.

Curse you, Gadget!!

I'm already cursed.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North


I heard somewhere that the there's nothing Federal about the Fed and there are no reserves.
Gold production worldwide is something around 13 billion dollars worth of gold. I think the U.S. has around 300 million ounces or less. Not nearly enough to back how much money is in the U.S. (something around 14 trillion dollars).

It's like we are living in a depression.

Originally posted by dadudemon


Now, there are those that say we would lose in the long run if we didn't mettle in other countries business like we do. Really? Prove it.


Of all the goods the US trades each year 90% is imported and only 10% is either exported or used domestically.

What this means is that 90% of all the goods that US citizens buy and use come from foreign countries. The US uses it's massive trading power to drive the prices of those goods down to next to nothing. This is done mostly because labour costs in the countries that it imports from are a tiny fraction of the US' own labour costs.

So...If the US was to "stop meddling" in other countries and become self sufficient then it would need to manufacture all those goods themselves. The costs would be massively higher than the imported goods and so the prices at the shops would be massively higher.

US citizens wouldn't be able to afford many of the things and so the demand would plummet and the companies making them would collapse thus putting huge numbers of people out of work and make them even less able to purchase US made goods.

Thus the entire US economy would completely collapse.

That's how the US would lose out if it stopped meddling in other countries affairs.

This is why isolationist polices in time of recession just compound the problem as like what happened during the great depression.

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
Gold production worldwide is something around 13 billion dollars worth of gold. I think the U.S. has around 300 million ounces or less. Not nearly enough to back how much money is in the U.S. (something around 14 trillion dollars).

Not entirely true, the US could use gold to back its currency but that would drive the price of gold so high that it would be impossible to use.

Originally posted by jaden101
That's how the US would lose out if it stopped meddling in other countries affairs.

"free-market-trade" vs "with-us-or-against-us-coalition-of-the-willing"

"meddling" might mean different things to different people. And certainly, some meddling is not beneficial to the American economy or way of life.

Originally posted by inimalist
"free-market-trade" vs "with-us-or-against-us-coalition-of-the-willing"

"meddling" might mean different things to different people. And certainly, some meddling is not beneficial to the American economy or way of life.

Yeah...but seeing as we're in a thread entitled "U.S Economy" I thought i'd go with that angle.

Some meddling is only not beneficial when the US ****s up and gets it wrong...Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti and plenty of other places. The only problem lies in the fact that the US can never admit when it's got it wrong and so just compound their own problems.

Originally posted by jaden101
Yeah...but seeing as we're in a thread entitled "U.S Economy" I thought i'd go with that angle.

fair enough, I might have read a bit into what you were saying

Originally posted by jaden101
Some meddling is only not beneficial when the US ****s up and gets it wrong...Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti and plenty of other places. The only problem lies in the fact that the US can never admit when it's got it wrong and so just compound their own problems.

true, however, there are more subtle instances.

America threatened to check all trucks going across the US/Canada border if Canada decriminalized pot.

While probably an empty threat, this would have had ridiculous effects on the US economy. Border delays of hours can be measured in millions of dollars lost for both nations.

Originally posted by inimalist




true, however, there are more subtle instances.

America threatened to check all trucks going across the US/Canada border if Canada decriminalized pot.

While probably an empty threat, this would have had ridiculous effects on the US economy. Border delays of hours can be measured in millions of dollars lost for both nations.

Indeed. Like them refusing to import cashmir wool from Scotland because the UK wouldn't make all its banana imports from US owned plantations. The US flexing it's economic muscle isn't new. So if it wishes to continue to exploit their power that way then they should shoulder the burden when the economically ravaged countries that they benefit from descend into chaos.

If they (and other 1st world countries) gave better trade conditions and stopped protecting their markets with ridiculous subsidies then most of the world wouldn't be living in abject poverty.

Originally posted by jaden101
Indeed. Like them refusing to import cashmir wool from Scotland because the UK wouldn't make all its banana imports from US owned plantations. The US flexing it's economic muscle isn't new. So if it wishes to continue to exploit their power that way then they should shoulder the burden when the economically ravaged countries that they benefit from descend into chaos.

If they (and other 1st world countries) gave better trade conditions and stopped protecting their markets with ridiculous subsidies then most of the world wouldn't be living in abject poverty.

I remember something about Haiti wanting to export to the US, but it would first be forced to import rice (something Haiti produces domestically) from America.

I agree, it is these needless restrictions, and subsidies. For all America and the West talk about free trade, especially with farms, they invest so much money into subsidizing growing and exporting food.

I tend to think poverty is at least partly the responsibility of the poor nation itself, but I couldn't agree more, that a fairer and more humanitarian economy would help more people that the one we have.

There's also the whole other issue thsat the US, when a country refuses to trade with them because they want to impose unfair conditions....the US has often resorted to then imposing trade bans on countries who still trade with the country who refused to trade with them.

Such is the case even to a small level. The band "Manic Street Preachers" were told at one point that they were no longer allowed to tour in the US because they played a gig in Cuba.

I know the Canada/Cuba relationship has always been a strain on Canada/US relations.

I remember there even being some political huffing and puffing about Castro being at Trudeau's funeral.

On another note, is Trudeau known well enough world wide for me to just name drop him like that?

EDIT: that manic street preachers stuff is weird. Are they an American band? Its almost like that Dixie Chicks stuff. Amazing how quickly music and art can become so politicized, and not for like the obvious, "rage-against-the-machine", type reasons.

Can't say I know him...And no...the Manics are British.

Originally posted by jaden101
Can't say I know him...

Ha, we really do make no international impact!

Originally posted by jaden101
And no...the Manics are British.

makes a bit more sense.

Did you hear about Galloway being barred from a speaking tour in Canada recently?

Originally posted by inimalist
Ha, we really do make no international impact!



makes a bit more sense.

Did you hear about Galloway being barred from a speaking tour in Canada recently?

I presume you mean George Galloway? I like his style but not his politics.

He certainly is a force in terms of putting his points across. Politics could do with more people like him on all sides instead of the snivelling politically correct apologists that infest the UK political establishment.

Banned for his war views I take it?

Originally posted by jaden101
I presume you mean George Galloway? I like his style but not his politics.

He certainly is a force in terms of putting his points across. Politics could do with more people like him on all sides instead of the snivelling politically correct apologists that infest the UK political establishment.

Banned for his war views I take it?

ya, specifically for supplying food, blanket, and other aide in trucks to Hamas. I think they may have even called him a "security concern"

It is understandable given international politics and stuff, and I'm totally not a supporter of his sort of leftism, but I think it reflects poorly on us.

Ah yeah. I read his weekly article in the paper while his convoy was driving to Palestine. He wasn't aiding Hamas but taking much needed aid to the Palestinians during the last spate of violence. As per usual, no doubt some aspects of the media were demonizing him. His praise and support of Saddam Hussain was misguided and he's made some moronic statements about suicide bombers in the past.

He's actually from my home town.

Originally posted by jaden101
Ah yeah. I read his weekly article in the paper while his convoy was driving to Palestine. He wasn't aiding Hamas but taking much needed aid to the Palestinians during the last spate of violence. As per usual, no doubt some aspects of the media were demonizing him.

lol, fair enough. All the news I saw of it here was about him aiding Hamas specifically.

Originally posted by jaden101
His praise and support of Saddam Hussain was misguided and he's made some moronic statements about suicide bombers in the past.


I saw his debate about the Iraq war with Christopher Hitchens, so ya, I'm totally on the same page with you about that.

Originally posted by jaden101
He's actually from my home town.

lol, does that mean he is your representative?

Any opinions from this guy in Argentina?

Part 1.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlDNMB6wYmI

Part 2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78ddURofMWs

http://libertyworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/obamanomics-09deficit.gif

Originally posted by inimalist

lol, does that mean he is your representative?

Thankfully no. His constituency is a London borough. Bethnal Green and Bow (you might know the name of the place if you're familiar with the Kray brothers)

Ironically one of things he continues to promote is greater racial diversity and more women in the UK parliment yet he ran in a constituency in order to out the only mixed race, female MP in Westminster.

Here's what he did when questioned about it

tD5tunBGmDQ

Wow, once again GM has shown how patriotic and American it is by closing factories in the US and laying off tons of workers, closing factories, and importing products from China instead of auctioning off it's foreign plants and bolstering their domestic labor force. Obama and his government are proving to be such pussies during this whole thing that I think the Conservative South American solution will be eventually carried out (build gated, walled off communities protected by the military, take helicopters to work in the cities, market products to countries who aren't free market and have currencies that are worth something so people can actually buy, let anyone who isn't rich or in the military die, starve, or kill each other off in lawlessness with the occasional police action to thin out their numbers).

Originally posted by inimalist
On another note, is Trudeau known well enough world wide for me to just name drop him like that?

I hope he is.

I remember being stuck in traffic with my mother on a late afternoon when I heard that Yitzhak Rabin had been shot. Hopefully there's a little global consideration behind how well-informed most Americans think they are; despite watching Fox News or CNN.

Originally posted by inimalist
On another note, is Trudeau known well enough world wide for me to just name drop him like that?

Infomercial guy who we should use Dianetics to cure obesity? Good at billiards?

Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
I hope he is.

I remember being stuck in traffic with my mother on a late afternoon when I heard that Yitzhak Rabin had been shot. Hopefully there's a little global consideration behind how well-informed most Americans think they are; despite watching Fox News or CNN.
There's no one from Canada well known enough around the world to name drop. At least not political figures.

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
There's no one from Canada well known enough around the world to name drop. At least not political figures.

I disagree....

Pierre Trudeau, Lester Pearson, etc.









Wait...




but I can only think of Prime Ministers...


Soooooo I guess I can agree.


DAMN YOU!

...Steven Abootman.