U.S. Economy...

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.

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 [or some similar staple grain] (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.