Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Do you realize we have a $61 TRILLION medicare liability alone? You bring up a good point. No, actually he doesn't. Is there any precedent for a nation being able to handle this kind of debt well? There is no precedent for the modern worldwide economy, PERIOD.  It's never been done before on this scale and with this speed.

Yes, and challengers to the United State's dominance are beating us! We are exporting your manufacturing and technological strength while at the same time selling our wealth cheap. All to the benefit of China and India.

Quoted: In 2008 the first of the babyboomers will start to retire at age 62. In 2011, the second wave at age 65. In 2015 there will be 2 workers for every person on SSI and Medicare. And that is just the start. As these people retire they will start pulling money out of their retirement accounts, negatively affecting the Stock Market. By 2020-2030 it will really be going downhill.

I think this is a bullshit argument by people who don't understand the stock market.  I have heard it before.

They will pull their money out of retirement accounts.  Lets say they have a well diversified portfolio.  Ok, so that creates some draw down on the entire market.  

And what will they do with that money?  Will they hid it under thier mattress?  NO!  They'll buy vacation homes, travel, pay for medical care, buy hearing aides and iPods, then go to long-term care and nursing homes, etc.  All these companies will show higher profits from baby-boomer spending
and thus push the market back up.  Or rather, the astute investor will be able to ride these stocks up as well.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I hearby claim all lands between Ohio and Minnesota with the future name of Shotarland.  All subjects of the Great Shotar Empire shall be productive in their lives and shall Keep themselves ready for military service to the Empire.  All gun control laws shall be repealed for Landowners, their children and at their discretion may administer for the crown, those lands and enterprises under their control.  Only land owners may vote and one land owner from each county as currently drawn may be elected to the Imperial advisory Senate.   Your empire will be short lived! I intend to proclaim myself Supreme Warlord of Flortexizonico. My first act will be to send my mighty war machine to conquer the northlands north and subjegate it's people. Serve us well and you will be treated well. Serve us poorly and you will die! You don't stand a chance.  Why you ask?  Because we control 90% of the continent's Fresh water.  Have vast manufacturing capacity and raw materials as well as more than abundant fuel.  In short, your invasion will fail, we have no reason to invade you and thus can consolidate our defenses at natural barriers while at the same time controlling our own skies and sea routes.  The only real threat is those nasty Canadians trying to infiltrate by sea with their polite ways, powerful beer and loose women but we will be ready for them too.  We drove them back once and we can do it again.

Uh...that was us that drove you back.  After you guys sacked York we came down and burned down the White House.

But I'm a legal resident alien and loyal to the United Staes now.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Do you realize we have a $61 TRILLION medicare liability alone? You bring up a good point. No, actually he doesn't. Is there any precedent for a nation being able to handle this kind of debt well? There is no precedent for the modern worldwide economy, PERIOD.  It's never been done before on this scale and with this speed. Yes, and challengers to the United State's dominance are beating us! We are exporting your manufacturing and technological strength while at the same time selling our wealth cheap. All to the benefit of China and India.

Anyone remember the socialists whing and wailing about how we should drag up the economies of these nations?

Quoted: The US economy is very flexible.  It can weather some pretty severe storms.

Even Democrats?  

Hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes... sure.  I don't think we can survive democrats, though.  They are much more destructive.

nobody wants to face the music--so true

economically the US is in BIG trouble -besides the trade deficit with China we have borrowed
money from them -LOTS -  Just look at the numbers

Tibet cry of the Snow Lion

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: After the collapse of the USA... ...Texas will become the dominant world power! ETA - No empire lasts forever, and the United States will not last forever either. Fact. And some here are alluding to the balkanization of the United States, something I have real fear over but is a very real possibility if events continue on as is. If that occurs there will be plenty of fighting in the Americas for a long time to come. First amongst ourselves and then with foreign invasion when we are weakened. The oceans will not protect us forever. Especailly true since our ICBM's are all in states with low populations and weak economies. Montana, Kansas, South Dakota, etc. are in no position to hold these weapons on their own, and they could never sustain independance. If our nation were to collapse, then states which could remain self sufficient (like Texas and California) would want these weapons.

For once living in California has an advantage.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I hearby claim all lands between Ohio and Minnesota with the future name of Shotarland.  All subjects of the Great Shotar Empire shall be productive in their lives and shall Keep themselves ready for military service to the Empire.  All gun control laws shall be repealed for Landowners, their children and at their discretion may administer for the crown, those lands and enterprises under their control.  Only land owners may vote and one land owner from each county as currently drawn may be elected to the Imperial advisory Senate.   Your empire will be short lived! I intend to proclaim myself Supreme Warlord of Flortexizonico. My first act will be to send my mighty war machine to conquer the northlands north and subjegate it's people. Serve us well and you will be treated well. Serve us poorly and you will die! You don't stand a chance.  Why you ask?  Because we control 90% of the continent's Fresh water.  Have vast manufacturing capacity and raw materials as well as more than abundant fuel.  In short, your invasion will fail, we have no reason to invade you and thus can consolidate our defenses at natural barriers while at the same time controlling our own skies and sea routes.  The only real threat is those nasty Canadians trying to infiltrate by sea with their polite ways, powerful beer and loose women but we will be ready for them too.  We drove them back once and we can do it again.

Your manufacturing might is has been exported to Mexico. The states which will join my empire posess the true manufacturing might. I have millions of people who will work in my converted automotive factories producing my weapons of war, or serve in the armies of Flortexizonico. I will use my B-1 bombers to anhilate your airbases, leaving you defenseless to the airial bombardment or your decomissioned factories. I will then send ships from my ports in Houston and Florida to cut off all of your supplies from the Mississippi river and the St. Lawerence river. I will then send my invasion forces through Kentucky to attack Ohio, through Missouri to attack Illinois and north through the Dakotas to attack Minnesota.

Your resistance will be short lived, but my wrath for your impudance will not!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I hearby claim all lands between Ohio and Minnesota with the future name of Shotarland.  All subjects of the Great Shotar Empire shall be productive in their lives and shall Keep themselves ready for military service to the Empire.  All gun control laws shall be repealed for Landowners, their children and at their discretion may administer for the crown, those lands and enterprises under their control.  Only land owners may vote and one land owner from each county as currently drawn may be elected to the Imperial advisory Senate.   Your empire will be short lived! I intend to proclaim myself Supreme Warlord of Flortexizonico. My first act will be to send my mighty war machine to conquer the northlands north and subjegate it's people. Serve us well and you will be treated well. Serve us poorly and you will die! You don't stand a chance.  Why you ask?  Because we control 90% of the continent's Fresh water.  Have vast manufacturing capacity and raw materials as well as more than abundant fuel.  In short, your invasion will fail, we have no reason to invade you and thus can consolidate our defenses at natural barriers while at the same time controlling our own skies and sea routes.  The only real threat is those nasty Canadians trying to infiltrate by sea with their polite ways, powerful beer and loose women but we will be ready for them too.  We drove them back once and we can do it again.

The mighty flaming waters of the Cuyahoga will serve as an impenetrable barrier, ever vigilant, guarding the western flank of New Merrellonia*



* two cars in every garage, a chicken in every pot, no fat chicks, free beer on Fridays

Quoted: Quoted: No, it's a totally different situation.  For one thing, even though the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia still exists.  Second, the USSR didn't collapse because of overspending but because their economy was state-run and incredibly inefficient. Darn it, there you go again, dashing my hopes of being overlord of the Northern Empire.

I got dibbs on Florida and Georgia though! j/k

Quoted: Quoted: In 2008 the first of the babyboomers will start to retire at age 62. In 2011, the second wave at age 65. In 2015 there will be 2 workers for every person on SSI and Medicare. And that is just the start. As these people retire they will start pulling money out of their retirement accounts, negatively affecting the Stock Market. By 2020-2030 it will really be going downhill. I think this is a bullshit argument by people who don't understand the stock market.  I have heard it before. They will pull their money out of retirement accounts.  Lets say they have a well diversified portfolio.  Ok, so that creates some draw down on the entire market.   And what will they do with that money?  Will they hid it under thier mattress?  NO!  They'll buy vacation homes, travel, pay for medical care, buy hearing aides and iPods, then go to long-term care and nursing homes, etc.  All these companies will show higher profits from baby-boomer spending and thus push the market back up.  Or rather, the astute investor will be able to ride these stocks up as well.

I do agree that wise investors will always find a way to make money as there are always going to be companies and sectors that do well.

However, your pollyanish vision of what is going to happen to all of this money seems rather amusing to me. You suppose that the day they retire there will be some sort of instant windfall of cash that will allow them to buy vacation homes, etc. Those who are in that kind of fiscal shape won't have to wait to buy such items, they are already financially secure to some degree. but how many of these retirees are going to be that self sufficient? Not all that many. One only has to see how much the average person has set aside for retirement. Overall it is a substantial amount and will provide a drag on the market. For the individual it is another story.
I have a close friend who is an financial advisor for a very reputable firm and he has been telling me this for a decade. Now Greenspan is coming out and saying the same.

I've engaged in this debate before and had people say the same to me or worse but what we are doing is unsustainable, even Greenspan has been saying it to Congress, foreign economists, and anyone who will listen. He has been low key about it so as not to shake the economy negatively but no one seems to be taking it seriously enough to do anything about it.

Only time will tell and I am making an effort to get out of debt(only some of my mortgage left) and pay attn to the economy and the market. The goal for each of us should be to look after our families and protect our own interests. The nation's economy appears to be on the road to FUBAR.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No, it's a totally different situation.  For one thing, even though the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia still exists.  Second, the USSR didn't collapse because of overspending but because their economy was state-run and incredibly inefficient. Darn it, there you go again, dashing my hopes of being overlord of the Northern Empire. I got dibbs on Florida and Georgia though!

The southern states of Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Oklahoma will all form the empire of Flortexizonico, and I shall be the Supreme Warlord of this empire!



I declared this before you, and the first decree of Flortexizonico is:

"First come, first serve!"

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No, it's a totally different situation.  For one thing, even though the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia still exists.  Second, the USSR didn't collapse because of overspending but because their economy was state-run and incredibly inefficient. Darn it, there you go again, dashing my hopes of being overlord of the Northern Empire. I got dibbs on Florida and Georgia though! The southern states of Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Oklahoma will all form the empire of Flortexizonico, and I shall be the Supreme Warlord of this empire! I declared this before you, and the first decree of Flortexizonico is: "First come, first serve!"

If that's supposed to be a sexual innuendo I have a better one:  No deposit, no return.

Could history repeat itself? And if the US did go bust, would it break apart and sell off its remaining hardware to settle debts?



yeah, we'll give em our ICBM's first, then re-negotiate

The wife and I have gotten out of all CC debt. no more CCs for us. We have a house note (New built house) and will need to purchase new transports within the next two years (1-SUV, 1 car). I have a retirement pension and investments. She has investments but no ret. package (self employed), she needs one. AND....we have a little girl on the way. We are alot beeter than we were a few years ago and things are getting better thank God. I worry for my daughter though.

Only time will tell and I am making an effort to get out of debt(only some of my mortgage left) and pay attn to the economy and the market. The goal for each of us should be to look after our families and protect our own interests. The nation's economy appears to be on the road to FUBAR.

So what do you plan on investing in if cash turns to crap?  

guns, hookers, and blow?  

The impending collapse of the United States has been routinely forecast...since about 1776 or thereabouts!

Here's a review of Oren Harries initial article in The National Interest, respecting a few of the 'great minds' that forecast the coming collapse of the United States, and capitalism, just in the 20th Century.....

In "Suffer the Intellectuals," Harries wonders why the intellectual class seems to get the most important questions so grievously wrong.

"On political matters particularly, intellectuals tend to share these two characteristics," Harries observes. "They are slaves of fashion, and, on the big questions, they tend to get things hopelessly wrong."

The existence of an intellectual class is one of the hallmarks of civilization. After all, someone has to be devoted to the task of thinking big thoughts and attempting to develop a coherent understanding of reality. Nevertheless, intellectuals tend to overrate their analysis and to follow the intellectual fashions of the day. As Harries observes, intellectuals tend to fulfill Harold Rosenberg's description of them as "a herd of independent minds."

In Western nations, blessed with relative peace and prosperity in recent decades, intellectuals have formed a loosely organized counterculture. At times, the intellectual class has organized itself into a formidable political force. More often, the intellectuals exert their influence through the knowledge class--educating, advising, cajoling, and chastising those who actually do the work of organizing and running the society.

As observers like Paul Hollander and others have observed, America's intellectual class has been overwhelmingly characterized by a sense of opposition to the nation's mainstream values. This intellectual "adversary culture" desires nothing less than a comprehensive social and culture revolution in America--a revolution that would produce, presumably, a global paradise modeled after the University of California at Berkley.

Owen Harries takes a look at the intellectuals' actual track record. In the early years of the 20th century, intellectuals like Norman Angell predicted that war was a dying institution and that a peaceful and borderless world would be produced by, as Harries explains, "the forces of Capitalism--of technology, free trade and liberal rationality." The fact that Angell was disastrously wrong did not prevent him from being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.

So, intellectuals in the early 20th century--at least in the years prior to World War I--believed that war had been rendered obsolete by democratic progress. Hostilities, they insisted, had been rendered obsolete by the forward march of civilization.

"Had you been a typical intellectual 25 years later, on the other hand, you would have believed the exact opposite," Harries argues. Intellectuals between the wars observed the Great Depression and prophesied that "the world was witnessing the death throes of capitalism and liberalism, that the failed system was destroying itself due to its 'internal contradictions.'" Certain of capitalism's collapse, an entire class of English-speaking intellectuals such as John Strachey predicted "a fight to the death between Fascism and Communism."

As Harries observes, "the belief that capitalism was finished remained intellectual orthodoxy in Europe well into the next decade." In other words, the very revival of capitalism after World War II led some intellectuals to predict its almost immediate collapse. Harries sites British historian A. J. P. Taylor, who told the BBC: "Nobody in Europe believes in the American way of life, that is, in private enterprise. Or rather, those who believe in it are a defeated party, and a party which seems to have no more future than the Jacobites in England after 1688." Then again, maybe not.

Directly in the aftermath of civilization's victory over fascism, some of the most influential intellectuals were declaring "closing time in the gardens of the West." As Harries explains, "All this as the West was on the eve of the biggest surge of economic prosperity ever witnessed in human history, brought about by the supposedly terminally ill capitalist system."

During the Cold War, intellectuals were often absolutely certain that communism would prevail and that democracy would collapse. Interestingly, this analysis was often shared by intellectuals on both the right and the left. Harries cites "the intellectuals' favorite economist," John Kenneth Galbraith, who was insisting as late as 1984 that "the Soviet system has made great material progress in recent years." Galbraith went on to argue that "the Russian system succeeds because, in contrast with the Western industrial economies, it makes full use of its man power." The fact that communism was then well on its way to collapse in the Soviet Union should have been apparent to any fair observer of the Soviet economy during those days. Galbraith, Harries insinuates, was simply captive to his prejudices.

Interestingly, Harries does not cite the example of Whittaker Chambers, who, in making his break with communism in 1937, told his wife: "You know, we are leaving the winning world for the losing world." Not so, as it turned out.

The parade of intellectual confusion continues in more recent years. During the 1970's, the Club of Rome predicted the self-destruction of the world due to overpopulation and environmental limitation. As Harries remembers, the Club of Rome's famous book, The Limits of Growth (1972) "was enthusiastically seized on by most intellectuals."

"Why do intellectuals get things so wrong, so often?," Harries asks. "The question is worth asking because they are still with us, still vocal, still taken seriously by many as interpreters of the course of human history."

In answering his own question, Harries suggests that intellectuals are often wrong because thinkers tend to demand coherence in human affairs, looking "for pattern, meaning, and consistency." Since intellectuals tend to be overwhelmingly secular, Harries observes that most intellectuals attempt to find such consistency in the form of ideology.

"Ideologies vary a good deal, but among the things they have in common is that they all require great selectivity with respect to empirical evidence," Harries suggests. "That which supports the ideological creed is readily assimilated and emphasized; that which conflicts with it is either noisily rejected or quietly filtered out and ignored."

Harries makes an important point here, and intellectuals, both liberal and conservative, should pay close attention to his analysis. The world is a great deal more complex than any intellectual analysis can fully understand or assimilate.

Harries also argues that intellectuals, having generally very little to do with the actual running of organizations, nations, and institutions, have little practical understanding of how the world actually works. "Thus individuals who have never organized anything more demanding than a round-robin letter to the editor or a university tutorial will without hesitation dismiss as simpletons and ignoramuses individuals who have been responsible for organizing and implementing vast practical projects," Harries explains.

Harries then turns to one of the central intellectual conceits of the last two hundred years. Citing critic Edmund Wilson, Harries observes that the intellectual class found it "extraordinarily difficult" to surrender "the assumption of inevitable progress." As he explains, "Brought up on it, their whole picture of the universe was constructed around it, and they were still likely to cling to it even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary."

For most of the last two centuries, this particularly intellectual fault has been primarily an affliction of the left. Liberal thinkers tended to argue for the inevitable progress and improvement of humanity. The left saw the rise of liberalism, Marxism, democratic socialism, and similar movements as vehicles for the spread of an inevitable progress towards ever greater human fulfillment and happiness.

In more recent years, some conservatives have fallen prey to this same intellectual temptation. Books such as Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man, reinterpret human history to argue for the inevitable victory of democratic ideals and freedom.

At this point, George Orwell steps into the picture. Harries cites his 1946 essay on James Burnham's theory of a managerial take-over of modern civilization. Orwell conceded that Burnham was on to something, but then went on to critique Burnham and his fellow intellectuals for "power-worship." Orwell's point is this--intellectuals tend to believe that "whoever is winning at the moment will always seem to be invincible." As history records, this is often just not the case. Seen from a secular perspective, the circus of the intellectuals serves as a significant warning against intellectual hubris. The problem with all secular theories of reality is that the reality tends to nullify the theory.

Intellectuals, like everyone else, can fall prey to their own egocentricity, ideological commitments, and blindness to reality. Furthermore, Harries observes that intellectuals tend to be characterized by "a narcissistic belief that what is happening now, in their lifetime, is uniquely important and valid."

Owen Harries' article should serve as a helpful warning against intellectual over-reaching and arrogance. Christians should observe the influence of the adversary culture and the intellectual class and be ready to present a distinctive Christian response in the intellectual arena. After all, Christians are assigned the task of intellectual engagement, and we have no right to be absent from the battle of ideas and the war of worldviews.

At the same time, we must be careful to enter the world of ideas with intellectual humility and a constant dependence upon our inheritance of Christian truth. "Behold I have magnified and increased wisdom more than all who were over Jerusalem before me; and my mind has observed a wealth of wisdom and knowledge," Solomon confessed. "And I set my mind to know wisdom and to know madness and folly; I realized that this also was striving after wind. Because in much wisdom there is much grief, and increasing knowledge results in increasing pain." No one said this was going to be easy.

http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2005-09-13

Among those 'bright lights', let us not forget Dr. Henry Kissenger, who once famously compared the United States and the Soviet Union to Athens and Sparta, with the declaration that Athens was destined to fall to Sparta.

Uh, yeah. That happened.

Eric The(Snide)Hun

Quoted: Only time will tell and I am making an effort to get out of debt(only some of my mortgage left) and pay attn to the economy and the market. The goal for each of us should be to look after our families and protect our own interests. The nation's economy appears to be on the road to FUBAR. So what do you plan on investing in if cash turns to crap?   guns, hookers, and blow?

Allow me to sample your wares and I will tell you!

On that, though, I am really not sure. Wait and see for now.
Helathcare and related items would seem to have rosy future but if socialized medicine comes thru, and it appears it will, that could change things. Not to mention that I foresee that system becoming unsustainable. Basic commodities perhaps.  This is all aways down the road but I do suspect we are going to see the beginnings of some longterm trends. If there is a total economic collapse all bets are off I guess. Still basic commodities, maybe precious metals. Cash, which would seem to be fine in the event of a downturning market might well be adversely affected by inflationary pressures and in the event of a serious collapse would decrease in worth rapidly.
No easy answers.

Maybe crazyquick could tell us what he thinks.

Actually though, sin has always sold so you may be on to something.

The mighty flaming waters of the Cuyahoga will serve as an impenetrable barrier, ever vigilant, guarding the western flank of New Merrellonia* www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/cuyahoga/cuybrn.gif * two cars in every garage, a chicken in every pot, no fat chicks, free beer on Fridays

That's some funny stuff right there.

No fat chicks in Cleveland?

[Dr Evil] Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight [/Dr. Evil]

Quoted: The impending collapse of the United States has been routinely forecast...since about 1776 or thereabouts! Here's a review of Oren Harries initial article in The National Interest, respecting a few of the 'great minds' that forecast the coming collapse of the United States, and capitalism, just in the 20th Century..... In "Suffer the Intellectuals," Harries wonders why the intellectual class seems to get the most important questions so grievously wrong. "On political matters particularly, intellectuals tend to share these two characteristics," Harries observes. "They are slaves of fashion, and, on the big questions, they tend to get things hopelessly wrong." The existence of an intellectual class is one of the hallmarks of civilization. After all, someone has to be devoted to the task of thinking big thoughts and attempting to develop a coherent understanding of reality. Nevertheless, intellectuals tend to overrate their analysis and to follow the intellectual fashions of the day. As Harries observes, intellectuals tend to fulfill Harold Rosenberg's description of them as "a herd of independent minds." In Western nations, blessed with relative peace and prosperity in recent decades, intellectuals have formed a loosely organized counterculture. At times, the intellectual class has organized itself into a formidable political force. More often, the intellectuals exert their influence through the knowledge class--educating, advising, cajoling, and chastising those who actually do the work of organizing and running the society. As observers like Paul Hollander and others have observed, America's intellectual class has been overwhelmingly characterized by a sense of opposition to the nation's mainstream values. This intellectual "adversary culture" desires nothing less than a comprehensive social and culture revolution in America--a revolution that would produce, presumably, a global paradise modeled after the University of California at Berkley. Owen Harries takes a look at the intellectuals' actual track record. In the early years of the 20th century, intellectuals like Norman Angell predicted that war was a dying institution and that a peaceful and borderless world would be produced by, as Harries explains, "the forces of Capitalism--of technology, free trade and liberal rationality." The fact that Angell was disastrously wrong did not prevent him from being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. So, intellectuals in the early 20th century--at least in the years prior to World War I--believed that war had been rendered obsolete by democratic progress. Hostilities, they insisted, had been rendered obsolete by the forward march of civilization. "Had you been a typical intellectual 25 years later, on the other hand, you would have believed the exact opposite," Harries argues. Intellectuals between the wars observed the Great Depression and prophesied that "the world was witnessing the death throes of capitalism and liberalism, that the failed system was destroying itself due to its 'internal contradictions.'" Certain of capitalism's collapse, an entire class of English-speaking intellectuals such as John Strachey predicted "a fight to the death between Fascism and Communism." As Harries observes, "the belief that capitalism was finished remained intellectual orthodoxy in Europe well into the next decade." In other words, the very revival of capitalism after World War II led some intellectuals to predict its almost immediate collapse. Harries sites British historian A. J. P. Taylor, who told the BBC: "Nobody in Europe believes in the American way of life, that is, in private enterprise. Or rather, those who believe in it are a defeated party, and a party which seems to have no more future than the Jacobites in England after 1688." Then again, maybe not. Directly in the aftermath of civilization's victory over fascism, some of the most influential intellectuals were declaring "closing time in the gardens of the West." As Harries explains, "All this as the West was on the eve of the biggest surge of economic prosperity ever witnessed in human history, brought about by the supposedly terminally ill capitalist system." During the Cold War, intellectuals were often absolutely certain that communism would prevail and that democracy would collapse. Interestingly, this analysis was often shared by intellectuals on both the right and the left. Harries cites "the intellectuals' favorite economist," John Kenneth Galbraith, who was insisting as late as 1984 that "the Soviet system has made great material progress in recent years." Galbraith went on to argue that "the Russian system succeeds because, in contrast with the Western industrial economies, it makes full use of its man power." The fact that communism was then well on its way to collapse in the Soviet Union should have been apparent to any fair observer of the Soviet economy during those days. Galbraith, Harries insinuates, was simply captive to his prejudices. Interestingly, Harries does not cite the example of Whittaker Chambers, who, in making his break with communism in 1937, told his wife: "You know, we are leaving the winning world for the losing world." Not so, as it turned out. The parade of intellectual confusion continues in more recent years. During the 1970's, the Club of Rome predicted the self-destruction of the world due to overpopulation and environmental limitation. As Harries remembers, the Club of Rome's famous book, The Limits of Growth (1972) "was enthusiastically seized on by most intellectuals." "Why do intellectuals get things so wrong, so often?," Harries asks. "The question is worth asking because they are still with us, still vocal, still taken seriously by many as interpreters of the course of human history." In answering his own question, Harries suggests that intellectuals are often wrong because thinkers tend to demand coherence in human affairs, looking "for pattern, meaning, and consistency." Since intellectuals tend to be overwhelmingly secular, Harries observes that most intellectuals attempt to find such consistency in the form of ideology. "Ideologies vary a good deal, but among the things they have in common is that they all require great selectivity with respect to empirical evidence," Harries suggests. "That which supports the ideological creed is readily assimilated and emphasized; that which conflicts with it is either noisily rejected or quietly filtered out and ignored." Harries makes an important point here, and intellectuals, both liberal and conservative, should pay close attention to his analysis. The world is a great deal more complex than any intellectual analysis can fully understand or assimilate. Harries also argues that intellectuals, having generally very little to do with the actual running of organizations, nations, and institutions, have little practical understanding of how the world actually works. "Thus individuals who have never organized anything more demanding than a round-robin letter to the editor or a university tutorial will without hesitation dismiss as simpletons and ignoramuses individuals who have been responsible for organizing and implementing vast practical projects," Harries explains. Harries then turns to one of the central intellectual conceits of the last two hundred years. Citing critic Edmund Wilson, Harries observes that the intellectual class found it "extraordinarily difficult" to surrender "the assumption of inevitable progress." As he explains, "Brought up on it, their whole picture of the universe was constructed around it, and they were still likely to cling to it even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary." For most of the last two centuries, this particularly intellectual fault has been primarily an affliction of the left. Liberal thinkers tended to argue for the inevitable progress and improvement of humanity. The left saw the rise of liberalism, Marxism, democratic socialism, and similar movements as vehicles for the spread of an inevitable progress towards ever greater human fulfillment and happiness. In more recent years, some conservatives have fallen prey to this same intellectual temptation. Books such as Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man, reinterpret human history to argue for the inevitable victory of democratic ideals and freedom. At this point, George Orwell steps into the picture. Harries cites his 1946 essay on James Burnham's theory of a managerial take-over of modern civilization. Orwell conceded that Burnham was on to something, but then went on to critique Burnham and his fellow intellectuals for "power-worship." Orwell's point is this--intellectuals tend to believe that "whoever is winning at the moment will always seem to be invincible." As history records, this is often just not the case. Seen from a secular perspective, the circus of the intellectuals serves as a significant warning against intellectual hubris. The problem with all secular theories of reality is that the reality tends to nullify the theory. Intellectuals, like everyone else, can fall prey to their own egocentricity, ideological commitments, and blindness to reality. Furthermore, Harries observes that intellectuals tend to be characterized by "a narcissistic belief that what is happening now, in their lifetime, is uniquely important and valid." Owen Harries' article should serve as a helpful warning against intellectual over-reaching and arrogance. Christians should observe the influence of the adversary culture and the intellectual class and be ready to present a distinctive Christian response in the intellectual arena. After all, Christians are assigned the task of intellectual engagement, and we have no right to be absent from the battle of ideas and the war of worldviews. At the same time, we must be careful to enter the world of ideas with intellectual humility and a constant dependence upon our inheritance of Christian truth. "Behold I have magnified and increased wisdom more than all who were over Jerusalem before me; and my mind has observed a wealth of wisdom and knowledge," Solomon confessed. "And I set my mind to know wisdom and to know madness and folly; I realized that this also was striving after wind. Because in much wisdom there is much grief, and increasing knowledge results in increasing pain." No one said this was going to be easy. http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2005-09-13 Among those 'bright lights', let us not forget Dr. Henry Kissenger, who once famously compared the United States and the Soviet Union to Athens and Sparta, with the declaration that Athens was destined to fall to Sparta. Uh, yeah. That happened. Eric The(Snide)Hun

I suspect you are attempting to cast dispersion on the basic theme of this thread. If so, it seems you make our point. Socialism fails. Capitalism and freedom prevail. the failings of this naiton's economy seem to me to be entrenched in an ongoing move towards socialism.

Quoted: The impending collapse of the United States has been routinely forecast...since about 1776 or thereabouts!... Eric The(Snide)Hun

Up until the past decade, the US had never been in such a state of economic peril. Recall that we were the greatest creditor (nation) after World War II and in the space of 50 odd years have blown that wad (economically speaking) and are now the greatest debtor (nation) the world has ever known. We have spent the greatest inheritance in history, and we are not making it up (for future generations, who will be left holding the tab).

You cannot run up debt indefinitely, our forefathers knew this and planned for the future. It seems modern society lives only for the present.

Two words...'Great Depression.'

That was the time when the United States teetered between facism and communism....

Problems, nowadays, can be traced back to the erroneous judgments made back then.

'Once the doors of the treasury are opened, only blood will close them again.'

Eric The(Doomed?WhoKnows?)Hun

Quoted: For once living in California has an advantage.

Not really. Going to be hard to invade montana with NEF single shots and 10 round mags.

Quoted: Two words...'Great Depression.' That was the time when the United States teetered between facism and communism.... Problems, nowadays, can be traced back to the erroneous judgments made back then. 'Once the doors of the treasury are opened, only blood will close them again.' Eric The(Doomed?WhoKnows?)Hun

Agreed.
Now, however we seem to teeter between freedom and neofascist socialism. With a few brief pushes away from it the general trend has been towards the latter.

Quoted: Quoted: For once living in California has an advantage. Not really. Going to be hard to invade montana with NEF single shots and 10 round mags.

Not to mention you will all be a part of Mexico anyhow.

For those who say that our economy will never collapse, and who foolishly think that we will remain the world's dominant power forever, I ask you this



What is that worth? What is it backed by?
Does paper have an intrinsic value?

Money is a social convention, an idea.  In our case a useful method of exchange for good and services.  Already there are efforts to do away with physical currency and move to a digital economy.

Quoted: No, it's a totally different situation.  For one thing, even though the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia still exists.  Second, the USSR didn't collapse because of overspending but because their economy was state-run and incredibly inefficient.

And you think the US economy is not state run? and is incredibly efficient?
Just rry starting up a company of your own and see how many government hoops you have to jump through, howm many regulations you have to comply with, how much money you end up having to give to the government.

The US is incredibly protectionist -- international companies are not allowed to directly compete in the US -- ever tried to book a flight on KLM from Chicago to San Francisco for example ?? Or to buy insurance (at half the price) from a European insurance company ??

If the market were opened up, the majority of US companies would collapse overnight.

My job has taken me inside some of the big names in the US, and I have seen the dirty internal detail of how a lot of them run -- held together with bailing wire, duct tape and a wish and a prayer, even without direct competition, many of them are just waiting for a gust of wind to hit them unexpectedly and they will sink without trace -- taking the US economy with them.

Unless something changes, its when, not if.

Quoted: And you think the US economy is not state run?

I don't THINK so, I KNOW it isn't state run.

Quoted: Quoted: The impending collapse of the United States has been routinely forecast...since about 1776 or thereabouts!... Eric The(Snide)Hun Up until the past decade, the US had never been in such a state of economic peril.

Nonsense.  No one who knows anything about history would make such a comment.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The impending collapse of the United States has been routinely forecast...since about 1776 or thereabouts!... Eric The(Snide)Hun Up until the past decade, the US had never been in such a state of economic peril. Nonsense.  No one who knows anything about history would make such a comment.

Really? Then explain the position of the US vis a vis the rest of the world in terms of current account balance

or Business Efficiency

will it get better?

Not if you look at the quality of output in Math and Science

We're in hock up to our eyeballs, our businesses are focused on anything to meet the next quarter's numbers, and we are churning out kids who are outclassed by their international peers. That does not bode well for the future.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No, it's a totally different situation.  For one thing, even though the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia still exists.  Second, the USSR didn't collapse because of overspending but because their economy was state-run and incredibly inefficient. While I agree with the majority of your statment, the highlighted phrase would be like saying "Even though the US collapsed, Colorado still exists. The Soviet Union was a combination of various countries, Russia being one of them. Not quite.  Russia was and is by far the largest of the countries and is the cultural and governmental heart of the old USSR.  Colorado or any other single state doesn't compare to Russia.

Screw you! We are way better than Russia.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: For once living in California has an advantage. Not really. Going to be hard to invade montana with NEF single shots and 10 round mags. Not to mention you will all be a part of Mexico anyhow.

Hey, no need to cop an attitude about it!!!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: For once living in California has an advantage. Not really. Going to be hard to invade montana with NEF single shots and 10 round mags. Not to mention you will all be a part of Mexico anyhow. Hey, no need to cop an attitude about it!!!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Second, the USSR didn't collapse because of overspending but because their economy was state-run and incredibly inefficient. And our economy isn't state run?  LOL. No, it's not.  No laughing required.

57% of the economy is controlled by the state either by direct spending or by regulation.  Perhaps "state run" was too strong an expression (although I suppose one could argue that soviet economy wasn't state run either since it didn't control 100%).  "Centrally planned" may be a more accurate phrase.

We have a free economy to about the same degree we have a free country.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The impending collapse of the United States has been routinely forecast...since about 1776 or thereabouts!... Eric The(Snide)Hun Up until the past decade, the US had never been in such a state of economic peril. Nonsense.  No one who knows anything about history would make such a comment. Really? Then explain the position of the US vis a vis the rest of the world in terms of current account balance or Business Efficiency will it get better?

No need to, the fact is we have indeed been in MUCH worse straits economically.  Anyone with a hint of a history education knows this.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Second, the USSR didn't collapse because of overspending but because their economy was state-run and incredibly inefficient. And our economy isn't state run?  LOL. No, it's not.  No laughing required. 57% of the economy is controlled by the state either by direct spending or by regulation.  Perhaps "state run" was too strong an expression (although I suppose one could argue that soviet economy wasn't state run either since it didn't control 100%).  "Centrally planned" may be a more accurate phrase. We have a free economy to about the same degree we have a free country.

Having government regulations regarding how a business is run doesn't make it state run or centrally planned, your ridiculous hyperbole notwithstanding.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The impending collapse of the United States has been routinely forecast...since about 1776 or thereabouts!... Eric The(Snide)Hun Up until the past decade, the US had never been in such a state of economic peril. Nonsense.  No one who knows anything about history would make such a comment. Really? Then explain the position of the US vis a vis the rest of the world in terms of current account balance or Business Efficiency will it get better? No need to, the fact is we have indeed been in MUCH worse straits economically.  Anyone with a hint of a history education knows this.

All sorts of data points to our being on shakier ground now than in the 20's.



Factor in personal (household consumer) debt and the rate is unsustainable:



So educate us as to just when the US has been deeper in debt? (and when rates were held artificially low to prop up a faltering economy) Look at how much the world wars increased debt vs. the past decade (and after the wars debt was paid down, now it continues to escalate) Look at the personal savings rate

Trade imbalances, entitlements and out of control spending (by both the .gov and private individuals) are combining to set the stage for the largest economic train wreck in history.

       

I guess we call in our debts to all the countries in the world for WW2 and have them repay with intrest.

Quoted: All sorts of data points to our being on shakier ground now than in the 20's.

Having more debt doesn't mean we're worse off than in the 20s.  Things are not that simple, or that simplistic.

Quoted: Quoted: All sorts of data points to our being on shakier ground now than in the 20's. Having more debt doesn't mean we're worse off than in the 20s.  Things are not that simple, or that simplistic.

Then enlighten us.

Specifically, you state

we have indeed been in MUCH worse straits economically

When & why?

Please provide supporting data.

TIA

we will take the rest of the world down  with us( economically) and  the rest of the world is aware of that .
We are also the only  think keeping alot of wolves in line also the rest of the world is aware of that

Ignorance is bliss with a lot of the posters in this thread.

This country is headed toward an economic collapse, or at least loads of problems, in 5-10 years time.

We have become a service society with around 70% of all jobs in this country being service related.  Industry/production has declined tremendously with most industries leaving the country including textiles, automobiles, electronics, and basically everything else. Hand in hand with this are most products are throw away.  Don't fix your TV or appliance, it's cheaper to buy a new one from China.

Globalism/Free Trade/WTO is destroying what is left.  Foreign bodies (WTO) mandate what we do in this country.  

The pre-college educational system here is in horrendous straits, while the college system does well in certain areas.  Americans are increasingly undereducated in essential skill areas and overeducated in superfluous skill areas.  How many people with masters in liberal arts do we need working in McDonalds?

For some reason people are ashamed of and look down on blue collared employment and skillsets.  Less and less people have the ability to repair vehicles, construct homes, run heavy equipment, etc.

Increasingly, other countries are being the innovators in new ideas and technology.  Medical research here is hampered due to restrictions on stem cell research.

I could go on and on, but the basics are that we have gone from an innovative, balanced society to one of rampant consumerism where debt is being wracked up at a staggering rate.  The government gets bigger, inalienable rights get less and less, jobs move overseas, and the middle class is shrinking but most people are happy as they have cable TV and porn.

Third world countries are rising on the back of American consumers while this country goes down the hole.

Quoted: we will take the rest of the world down  with us( economically) and  the rest of the world is aware of that . We are also the only  think keeping alot of wolves in line also the rest of the world is aware of that

That's still not gonna keep everything from coming apart someday.


Not saying it's going to be anytime soon... But all mega-powers collapse at some point [Egypt, Greece, Rome, and the Soviet Union, just to name a few]... It is going to happen people, and when it happens the United States will split into many smaller nation-states.

It might be tomorrow... It might be a hundred years from now... I don't go around preaching doom and gloom, but it's time for Americans to return to somebasic ideas about being ready for 'times of famine'. You never know when the crap is going to hit the fan, the best thing to do is own the land you live on, have little or no debt, have enough supplies to survive for a few months with no external help, and have enough weapons, ammo and training to defend yourself, and then sleep easy at night and don't worry about it.

I call that common sense.

Quoted: Ignorance is bliss with a lot of the posters in this thread. This country is headed toward an economic collapse, or at least loads of problems, in 5-10 years time. We have become a service society with around 70% of all jobs in this country being service related.  Industry/production has declined tremendously with most industries leaving the country including textiles, automobiles, electronics, and basically everything else. Hand in hand with this are most products are throw away.  Don't fix your TV or appliance, it's cheaper to buy a new one from China. Globalism/Free Trade/WTO is destroying what is left.  Foreign bodies (WTO) mandate what we do in this country.   The pre-college educational system here is in horrendous straits, while the college system does well in certain areas.  Americans are increasingly undereducated in essential skill areas and overeducated in superfluous skill areas.  How many people with masters in liberal arts do we need working in McDonalds? For some reason people are ashamed of and look down on blue collared employment and skillsets.  Less and less people have the ability to repair vehicles, construct homes, run heavy equipment, etc. Increasingly, other countries are being the innovators in new ideas and technology.  Medical research here is hampered due to restrictions on stem cell research. I could go on and on, but the basics are that we have gone from an innovative, balanced society to one of rampant consumerism where debt is being wracked up at a staggering rate.  The government gets bigger, inalienable rights get less and less, jobs move overseas, and the middle class is shrinking but most people are happy as they have cable TV and porn. Third world countries are rising on the back of American consumers while this country goes down the hole.

You got it bud.
I don't see how we are going to avoid the bleak future we have painted ourselves into.

Quoted: All sorts of data points to our being on shakier ground now than in the 20's. Trade imbalances, entitlements and out of control spending (by both the .gov and private individuals) are combining to set the stage for the largest economic train wreck in history.

Scary chart.

Everyone that even TOOK a macro econ class raise there hands!

Everyone that took econ classes beyond the macro/micro intro classes raise their hands!

Everyone that got A's in those classes raise their hands!

[me]

You people are not really thinking these things through.

Lets go over some of the more popular aspects of "the end is near-ness" in this thread.

1. National Debt.

2. National Deficiet.

3. Trade and the Tradeoff of manufacturing to outside nations.

4. GDP defined and compared.



If you a moron you can't understand the following, so ignore the rest and continue on you "heard on 60 minutes" theory of why the US economy will tank soon.

----
1. National Debt.
Government Debt is broadly defined as the accumulation of past government borrowing and the government's finance budget deficits.

2. National Deficit.
Budge deficits is the excess of government spending over tax revenue.  Basically is the debt added in that particular term, not the total debt.

What happens when a government practices deficit spending, as ours does most terms since WWII?  Basically the government must borrow money right?  Why?  Because it is spending more than it earns (taxes) and companies and organizations will not provide services to even the government without some cash.  Thus the government must borrow money from the market to make up the difference, which as we know is defined as the deficit.  It is exactly the same if you take out a loan to build a house or buy a car.

So what does this do to the economy?  Well simplistically there is one market that represents the supply of loanable funds  The government does not get a special market, nor does it print more money, well at least ours doesnt.  The government, when it needs to borrow money to make up for deficit spending, borrows on the open market that you and I do.  Its the same market.  What does this mean?  It means that there is less money in market that is available to you and I to borrow.  It does NOT mean that there is less money.  It just means that there is some guy out there borrowing a lot of money, so the amout of money the market is willing to let be loaned out is reduced before the public at large has a chance to borrow.

Results, simply, are that market for loanable funds has less money in it and the interest rates are higher.  Thats it.

3. Trade
Believe it or not trade benefits everyone.  Yes it does.  All your ASSumptions are wrong.  Lets look at a simplified example.  One of the classic examples used in many texts is that of the Farmer and Rancher.  So you have these two guys, one is a farmer and one is a rancher.

The farmer has the ability to produce 8 pounds of meat for 8 hours of work, OR 32 pounds of potatoes for 8 hours work.

The rancher has the ability to produce 24 pounds of meat for 8 hours work OR 48 pounds of potatoes for 8 hours work.

So why should the rancher trade with the farmer?  We, the US, the rancher, are better at doing both things.  Why should we trade with the farmer?  We don't need his stinking Chicom meat or taters!

Lets look at this shall we?  Say the Rancher divides half is day to meat production and half to potatoes.  Thats 4 hours each.  His result is 12 pounds of meat and 24 pounds to potatoes.  Not to shabby huh?

The farmer, dividing his day in the same manner, produces 4 pounds of meat and 16 pounds of potatoes.  See told you we don't need no trading!  Not.

BUT lets assume they do trade.  The farmer will concentrate on taters.  He produces in a 8 hour day, 32 pounds of potatoes.  The rancher can work for 6 hours on meat and 2 hours on potatoes.  That will give him a total of 18 pounds of meat and 12 of potatoes.

With Trade
Farmer: 32 potatoes
Rancher: 18 meat, 12 potatoes
So they can swap foods and still get MORE of BOTH if they trade, than if they both work alone.
Farmer: 17 (gave up 15 )potatoes and 5 meat
Rancher: 13 (gave up 5) meat and 27 potatoes

To compare without trade both would have:
Farmer: 4 meat, 16 potatoes
Rancher: 12 meat, 24 potatoes.

Its self explanatory.  With trade BOTH HAVE MORE.  Without, BOTH HAVE LESS.  This is one of the basic principals of ALL economics.  TRADE IS GOOD!  It directly translates into large economoies of nations and trading goods.

"Losing Jobs" to outside countries?  Its a part of trade.  Those countries get jobs how?  Because for the most part, labor is cheaper.  Cheaper labor means cheaper expenses for the company thus lowering the COST of the good YOU buy.  That means you get the good for cheaper.  What does that mean?  You will spend that savings on something else in the economy.  It also that the labor that USED to make that product here at home, must retrain into another field.  Life's a bitch.  They are NO LONGER COMPETETIVE in making that product.  Is this a problem for the US?  No, our unemployment is about as low as it ever has been, and its lower than the rest of the world.  Those workers laid off can be put to use in some field where the US has the advantage.  Thus we make more of the stuff we are good at, and the crap countries make the stuff they are good at.  We both win because the net effect is more of the two products are produced than if we each made both.  Hence the example of the farmer and rancher.

4. GDP
Normally its defined as the market value of all the goods and services produced within a countryin a given period of time.  What makes up GDP?  Well this is acctually worked out in detail.

GDP=Consumption(by households) + investments(incl capital spending houses, equip etc) +gov spending +net exports (diff betweein imports and exports)

GDP is often used as a measure of standard of living.  It doesn't specifically try and quantify the standard of living, but it always directly coresponds with the standard of living.  High GDP, high standard of living, low GDP low SoL.  This is why the term/number is thrown around a lot in the media.

GDP of the US in 1970 was ~3500 BILLION and today its ~9500 BILLION!

Not convinced?  Compare to our debt...we will do this as debt being a percentage of GDP

1790 the debt over GDP was ~41 percent
1890 the debt/GDPx100 was ~below 20 percent
WWII it was ~120 percent (damn!)
today it is only about ~40 percent or below

In reality we are no worse off than we first started the country!  Why?  For one we have a LOT more debt than we did then, BUT we have a LOT more citizens.  More tax revenue, and more people to spead the debt over.

If we had to pay off all the national debt today..3.5 trillion in debt, and taking into account the adult population, that is ONLY 13,000 a person!  Not a lot in the long run.


Summary.

The economy is fine.

Trade is a GOOD thing.  The more chinese and mexican crap the better, because not only do they get money out of it, we get money out of it!

All those not knowing WTF they are talking about need to STFU and do some research rather than assuming they know all.

All these economy is tanking threads are tiring.

Quoted: Quoted: After the collapse of the USA... ...Texas will become the dominant world power! ETA - No empire lasts forever, and the United States will not last forever either. Fact. And some here are alluding to the balkanization of the United States, something I have real fear over but is a very real possibility if events continue on as is. If that occurs there will be plenty of fighting in the Americas for a long time to come. First amongst ourselves and then with foreign invasion when we are weakened. The oceans will not protect us forever.

Did you see the thread about Tookie William's funeral?

There's your Balkanization right there...

Do you think "Kilowatt the Third" could EVER be made into a real American? And what about his many bastard children and hos populating the hood?

Talk about The Enemy Within