Mapleleaf wrote:At one point in the Roman Empire, when the call came to defend the city/country, a man would leave his family, bring his own food and equipment and take his position with the Army. There was discipline. Rank was earned and appreciated. The training was intense and the results were highly respected by foes.
As the years passed, the defeated states sent food and such to Rome. The Romans grew accustomed to being provided such goods. It was not necessary to work to provide such items for themselves. At one point, wealthly patriots bought their rank. Respect and rank dissipated. Discipline and training suffered. The Army grew soft. Rome's enemies took advantage of this weakness. At some point in time, the Eastern Empire fell and the Eastern Empire continued for another 1000 years. CHECK THOSE YEARS...WAS IT A THOUSAND.
Rome was an empire in scope through the last century of their republic, and it lasted through Justinian (about 750 years in total).
Soon after Justinian, they were an empire in name only, as their borders were pushed back to roughly what Turkey's borders are today.
A few centuries later their borders shifted and they lost some to the east and gained some on the west, so they had equal amounts of territory on each side of the Bosporus, but they didn't really gain in the amount of territory they covered.
McTag wrote:My answer to the first question, as I haven't read the rest yet:
It might have happened quite quickly, had Saddam succeeded in his aim of pegging Iraqi oil to the Euro, and other developed nations then as a result came out of Dollars US.
It wouldn't do us any harm if people started paying for oil in Euros, unless the treasury department was incompetent.
goodfielder wrote:This is my simplistic take on it....My guess - it's on the wane for the US but I believe it will take a bit longer before China supplants the US as the world superpower. Give it fifty years I'd say.
Yeah, those brutal dictatorships are the next big thing.
I believe it is clear enough that the relative dominance of the U.S. in world affairs, both political and economic, have declined since the end of WWII and, perhaps more visibly, since the end of the Cold War.
It has already been noted, by those here who make historical references, that we did not pursue empire during our periods of unrivalled dominance, perhaps something a bit different, which has been labelled hegemony, (mostly by our critics). In this context it is noteworthy that we have supported - contrary to virtually all of the historical precedents for imperial or "hegemonic" powers - institutions and structures that voluntarily give power and a voice to other less powerful nations, many of which do not wish us well. The United Nations and the World Trade Organization are perhaps the most prominent examples. Indeed our rather consistent pursuit of free trade has been decidedly contrary to the behavior of all previous empires or hegemonies, from Persia, to Rome, to Great Britain and the Soviets. On the other hand we have not gone so far as to assist the Lilliputians in tying Gulliver down -- we have resisted absurdities such as the In ternational Criminal Court and the Kyoto Treaty. Our 'hegemony', such as it is, results as much from the simple fact that we were the last man standing after the struggles of the 20th century, as it does from any policy or goal that we have pursued.
I suspect the meaning of this is that, in not pursuing empire, and in not attempting to suppress economic competition, we will likely delay the onset of the internal transformations that have weakened and contributed to the fall of previous empires. How much? I don't know.
For a nation to descend to "Second Class" status there must exist some serious contenders for "First Class" status. In today's world, I certainly don't see any out there. Both China and India still have a very long way to go economically. China, in particular, very likely has a painful and potentially very disruptive political maturing process ahead of it. Of the two I believe India is the more likely winner, and note that it is a country with which we have no direct conflict of issues or strategy.
Europe is depopulating rapidly and apparently unable to deal successfully with the consequences of it - namely immigration from neighboring cultures and regions. On the other hand, through such devices as the European Union, Europe is very seriously attempting to create a new identity and working model for continued political and economic success, if not dominance. It is an admirable model, but it is far from clear that it will succeed.
I believe former Governor Dick Lamm has a few potentially serious points in the well-publicized remarks he offered on threats to America's survival. and which were quoted above. However, in the main what he offered was, at best, a second recitation of the now discredited nonsense that the 'Know-Nothings' of the 1870s and 1880s offered in response to the flood of Irish, Italian, Jewish, and Central European immigration that so bothered them then. It turns out that the grandchildren and great grandchildren of these immigrants, who were then described much as Lamm did our contemporary immigrants - uneducated,unskilled and bearing alien cultures - are not only thoroughly assimilated, but also among our highest achieving and most productive citizens. There is no reason to think otherwise of our current immigrants.
There is indeed a difference in the metaphors of the "melting pot" and "the salad bowl". It may be that our current emphasis on "cultural diversity" is merely a necessary means of escaping the racism formerly directed at African Americans, but one with potentially dangerous side effects if pursued too far. The fact remains that the USA is largely unique in that one can simply decide to become an American. Despite the veneer of PC speech, the melting pot still functions - perhaps differently, but functions nonetheless.
Perhaps the bottom line here is that the USA has not attenmpted to remove or immunize itself from competition in a world that will always remain competitive. In such a situation there may well arise other greater powers or cultures. However none are on the horizon now, and our decline - even if one views it as inevitable - is not at all evident to an observer willing to consider all of the facts.
Import restrictions, steel tariffs, protectionist trade restrictions working now, George. Am I right?
Of which Iraq is but a microcosm. Sorry to disagree, I like you.
McTag wrote:Import restrictions, steel tariffs, protectionist trade restrictions working now, George. Am I right?
... Sorry to disagree, I like you.
And I, you. However I believe in this case you have your facts wrong. The steel tariffs were a political act - a temporary thing that has long since lapsed. I don't know to what "protectioniost trade restrictions" you are referring. I am certainly not aware of any, except perhaps our frankly absurd support of domestic sugar crops and a few other like measures. However in the area of protectionist policies for domestic agriculture both Japan and the EU surpass us by a wide margin.
Perhaps you have been reading about Canada's continuing complaints about softwood lumber and live cattle imports. Canada enjoys a truly huge favorable balance of trade with us, which was substantially expanded with NAFTA. Despite this they barrage us with neurotic complaints about unfair treatment, the ludicrous culmanation of which is that we have unfairly harmed their live cattle exporters by banning further imports in the wake of the discovery of a BSE infected cow imported from Canada. Our Asian customers instantly banned imports of processed beef from both Canada and the U.S (a vastly larger market) but somehaow the Canadians see themselves as the victims in this game. On the softwood lumber issue the WTO has ruled in our favor.
georgeob1 wrote:On the other hand we have not gone so far as to assist the Lilliputians in tying Gulliver down -- we have resisted absurdities such as the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Treaty.
I think those two treaties get a bum rap here in America.
Kyoto would actually make money for us if we built a bunch of nuclear plants and then sold our pollution credits.
We get so many bogus war crimes charges thrown at us by fringe groups that it is perhaps natural that we suspect that the ICC will be a kangaroo court. But I think the ICC would reject these bogus charges out of hand and focus on legitimate charges.
georgeob1 wrote:I suspect the meaning of this is that, in not pursuing empire, and in not attempting to suppress economic competition, we will likely delay the onset of the internal transformations that have weakened and contributed to the fall of previous empires. How much? I don't know.
I think the more recent empires have depended on global trade ties for their empire, and the empires vanished overnight when world order shifted and severed those ties.
In our case, the ongoing march of globalism and free trade also functions to support our empire, and our empire will likely also vanish as soon as there is a major disruption in the current system of global free trade.
The fact that this system allows other countries to rise in power will help strengthen it though. China and India will likely rise in the system to become our equals, and then their self interest will cause them to help us sustain it.
You two are actually being serious, aren't you.
Amazing.......or maybe the word I am looking for is frightening.
Lord Ellpus wrote:You two are actually being serious, aren't you.
Amazing.......or maybe the word I am looking for is frightening.
Which two? I was being serious, if you meant me.
What is amazing and/or frightening???
oralloy wrote:georgeob1 wrote:On the other hand we have not gone so far as to assist the Lilliputians in tying Gulliver down -- we have resisted absurdities such as the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Treaty.
I think those two treaties get a bum rap here in America.
Kyoto would actually make money for us if we built a bunch of nuclear plants and then sold our pollution credits.
We get so many bogus war crimes charges thrown at us by fringe groups that it is perhaps natural that we suspect that the ICC will be a kangaroo court. But I think the ICC would reject these bogus charges out of hand and focus on legitimate charges.
We disagree with respect to both Kyoto and the ICC.
The kast thing the political supporters of Kyoto in the U.S. wanted was more nuclear power. I don't see any realistic scenario under which we might have both accepted Kyoto and enthusiastically resumed construction of nuclear power plants. I don't believe the Kyoto Treaty itself included a pollution rights trading scheme, though one could well have been added. In any event the signatory nations are not likely to even come close to meeting their obligations under it. More iportantly Indfia, China, the nations of the former Sov iet Empire, and all developing nations were excluded from any obligation under this absurd treaty. It was a sham, and the details were rigged to harm us. We were right to reject it.
The ICC has been in existence for several years by now, and I am not aware of anything meaningful that it has accomplisherd (or even begun) , despite the fact that there is no shortage of violations of human rights out there by governments from Myanmar to Sudan and, as well, by self-styled 'revolutionary' movements across Africa. In the very short period during which mighty Belgium claimed similar international jurisdiction for its courts, it dealt with frivolous (but malicious in their intent) lawsuits directed against Donald Rumsfield and other U.S. government officials, but none against the perpetrators in the Rwandan genocide -- its former colony. (There finally arose a UN sponsored court forthat.) The ICC will be no better.
Quote:I think the more recent empires have depended on global trade ties for their empire, and the empires vanished overnight when world order shifted and severed those ties.
In our case, the ongoing march of globalism and free trade also functions to support our empire, and our empire will likely also vanish as soon as there is a major disruption in the current system of global free trade.
I find this a bit confusing. Empires in the modern era, from Spain and Portugual to Great Britain, France, and the Soviets worked to control and limit the trade of their colonies, delegating the provision of raw materials to the colonies and satellites and manufacture to the poarent country. That is not at all analogous to what exists now. We have a nearly world-wide syatem that is essentially competitive in nature and with very wide access to markets on all sides.
Whether China and India "become our equals", remains to be seen. One of life's basic laws is "It's never too late to fail".
Any nation...or empire...CAN become second-rate...almost without regard to how "second-rate" is defined.
I suspect every great nation or empire...every dominate nation or empire...has, in piques of hubris, considered themselves to be beyond fall.
It seems to me that we have already begun the spiral downward...and in the last few years, it seems an almost intentional journey occasioned by incompetent leadership.
My guess: As we look on Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome, the British empire...
...one day others will look the same way on us.
I doubt it will happen in my lifetime (I'm 70)...but I rather suspect it will happen during the lifetime of people currently alive.
To bad, that!
We haven't really done the best we could with what we've had available to us.
No one who lived through the second half of the 20th century can deny how radically our world had changed. Of course there has always been change. It took thousands of years for us to move from a nomadic life style to settled agriculture and hundreds of years for gunpowder and printing to transform Europe. The new technologies and social transformations of the 20th century were both unique and a challenge. What had been advanced technology at the end of the 19th century were obsolete in 50 years, and yesterday's technology is already headed toward the junk pile. Old regimes toppled right and left. The world shrank as communications reached everywhere instantaneously. As late as 1965 there were still remote tribes who hadn't changed much since the Stone Age, but that all changed in less than a generation.
Change is inherently risky, and no one can predict all of the consequences. Our world today exhibits many, if not most of the Utopian Worlds fiction yearned for, and technology promises more wonders for next week. Of course, destopia also is evident everywhere. We live longer, healthier lives. Many of us lead individual lives of amazing luxury and choice. The raw edge of survival has never been further removed from most people's daily existence. Infant mortality is on the whole improving, while life expectancy increases. In the Western World despotism has virtually become extinct, and chauvinism is decidedly not politically correct. Our cities today are marvels of sanitary cleanliness compared to what they were less than a hundred years ago.
The Stone Age Montanyards and natives of New Guinea have joined the modern world. Isn't that wonderful? They live longer, eat better, and have more opportunities for individual expression. They can watch robots explore Mars in almost real time, telephone relatives half way around the world, and fly from California to New York in hours. Alcoholism and common childhood diseases plague their new urban communities. Their religion is in tatters and the taboos that provided stability for thousands of years are now laughable. They breath toxic fumes instead of jungle rot, and live in tenements instead of straw huts. Their tribal system ihave been destroyed and the old chiefs and oligarchies have lost much their power. Once they were at the mercy of Nature, and now they are caught in a bewildering tangle of modern power struggles. Has change been good, or bad for these aboriginal peoples?
The government conceptualized in 1787 was not the same as what existed in 1837. The world changed in those fifty years, and people's expectations of what their rights and government should be were different. As the nation expanded westward, new States were added and the Constitution was tested by new conditions. In 1787 the Founders believed that slavery would die of its own accord, but it didn't and compromise after compromise were necessary to accommodate competing interests. When Texas gave up its independence to join the Union, we became embroiled in a border dispute with Mexico. The Mexican War caused more questions about just what the Federal government could/should do. Less than two decades later, Lincoln suspended the Rights of Habeas Corpus, instituted an unpopular military draft, and took control over the railways and telegraph systems. People were arrested, held without bail for lengthy periods, tried by military courts martial and imprisoned or executed without public trial. After the War, the Federal government occupied and dictated how the Southern States were governed. Many Confederate soldiers were either disenfranchised, or believed that they were. This was a whole new way for American government to relate to the People.
With the Spanish-American War, the United States acquired responsibility over people in foreign lands and fought a viscous guerrilla war against Aguinaldo during the Philippine Insurrection. No quarter asked, not given in steaming jungles far from any media attention. And back home in the U.S.A., the People were confused and divided over whether we should be in the Philippines at all and what we were doing there. Under our system and philosophy of government, should we be involved in governing a foreign people until they were ready to govern themselves? Before that issue could be resolved, General Pershing was sent into Mexico pursuing Pancho Villa, even though we weren't at war with Mexico. Shock, dismay and predictions that the Constitution was being shredded.
President Wilson promised to keep us out of the European War, but a few years later he led us into it. During the Great War again civil liberties were greatly infringed. The lumber industry and coal mines were nationalized, and newspapers "dis-encouraged" to print anything critical of the government, or war-effort. Wilson, and his successors, used the power of the Federal government to stifle the fledgling Labor Movement. Without prior warning or any legal justification in Bisbee, Arizona, miners suspected of labor sympathy were rounded up before dawn. The miners and their families were herded in their nightclothes to a railroad siding, loaded on freight cars and hauled away. Who remembers that, and can you imagine that happening today anywhere in the United States?
The Great Depression and Dust Bowl uprooted hundreds of thousands, and there was no Federal government assistance to help them find food and shelter. Families were driven off farms that had existed since pioneering days, as banks foreclosed their mortgages
and then failed. Hoover was defeated for re-election, though he was personally blameless for the misery of the times. FDR, plus a host of Communist and proto-fascist opportunists, promised to put things right. It was time for a "New Deal". The problem was that almost every New Deal program was found Un-Constitutional and struck down. The President tried to alter the Supreme Court by packing it with loyal New Dealers, but failed.
WWII really changed the world, even in America where few bombs ever fell. Europe was in ruins and Stalin seized much of the old Third Reich for himself. . Communist governments were in the ascendancy in Asia, Africa, and South America. Atomic warfare became everyone's nightmare, and the Cold War was fought in the shadows for the rest of the century. All the world's colonial powers were exhausted and unable to effectively hold on to their foreign possessions. "Foreign possessions", now isn't that a quaint and obsolete term in 2006? The horrors of genocide shocked and shamed the world.
In 1950, there was no National Highway system. If you wanted to travel from San Francisco to New York, you went by rail, though a few wealthy individuals might fly across country in a couple of days. Telegrams carried important messages, and many Americans still shared a telephone party line. AM radio was the standard, and people still sat on front porches listening to comedy sit-coms. Kids played unorganized and unsupervised baseball on empty lots. Girls played with dolls and wore skirts. Controversial topics were forbidden in polite company, and polite company was expected of everyone. People read newspapers and magazines. At the movies you could still catch a vaudeville act and have a chance of winning a set of dishes. When you bought your gasoline for under a dollar, you got free S&H Gift Stamps redeemable for prizes. Rural families still used the outhouse and went to bed early because the cost of kerosene was too expensive. People smoked, and life-expectancy was maybe 71.
J. Edgar was untouchable because he held embarrassing personal files on public figures. Confessions could be coerced from defendants in filthy jails. Minorities were deprived of their civil rights. Derogatory slurs and cruel jokes were so common that most people never gave them a thought. Gossip could ruin a family, and shame kept any unusual behavior hidden behind closed doors. Spouse and child abuses went unreported, because that was family business and of no concern to the community at large. A good doctor might make $10,000 a year, and high school dropouts could go to work in the steel mills for a livable wage.
What has this all to do with the topic of the thread? Yes, we can expect that the America of the future will change from what it is today. No, the Constitution will not go away and become a "scrap of paper". Our fundamental values will endure, but they will also evolve as people's expectations and conditions press in upon us. Some people will regard our future will becoming "better", and others will feel that things are not only "worse", but headed for total melt-down. Actually, the truth will lie somewhere in between, as it always has. The courageous will be optimistic, and the fearful will want to turn the clock back to a time that never was. The world will continue to change, and humans will continue to squabble among themselves over almost infinite differences of opinion. At this time I see no evidence for believing that the United States will be replaced as a major world leader in political philosophy, military power, economics, or as THE shining light to which other Peoples aspire.
We are not any more immune to change than any Stone Age tribe, though presumably we should be better equipped to deal with it. On the other hand no one ever went broke underestimating human stupidity and lack of foresight.
BTW, I think the United States has done pretty darn well since it's inception in 1787.
Asherman wrote:No one who lived through the second half of the 20th century can deny how radically our world had changed. Of course there has always been change. It took thousands of years for us to move from a nomadic life style to settled agriculture and hundreds of years for gunpowder and printing to transform Europe. The new technologies and social transformations of the 20th century were both unique and a challenge. What had been advanced technology at the end of the 19th century were obsolete in 50 years, and yesterday's technology is already headed toward the junk pile. Old regimes toppled right and left. The world shrank as communications reached everywhere instantaneously. As late as 1965 there were still remote tribes who hadn't changed much since the Stone Age, but that all changed in less than a generation.
Change is inherently risky, and no one can predict all of the consequences. Our world today exhibits many, if not most of the Utopian Worlds fiction yearned for, and technology promises more wonders for next week. Of course, destopia also is evident everywhere. We live longer, healthier lives. Many of us lead individual lives of amazing luxury and choice. The raw edge of survival has never been further removed from most people's daily existence. Infant mortality is on the whole improving, while life expectancy increases. In the Western World despotism has virtually become extinct, and chauvinism is decidedly not politically correct. Our cities today are marvels of sanitary cleanliness compared to what they were less than a hundred years ago.
The Stone Age Montanyards and natives of New Guinea have joined the modern world. Isn't that wonderful? They live longer, eat better, and have more opportunities for individual expression. They can watch robots explore Mars in almost real time, telephone relatives half way around the world, and fly from California to New York in hours. Alcoholism and common childhood diseases plague their new urban communities. Their religion is in tatters and the taboos that provided stability for thousands of years are now laughable. They breath toxic fumes instead of jungle rot, and live in tenements instead of straw huts. Their tribal system ihave been destroyed and the old chiefs and oligarchies have lost much their power. Once they were at the mercy of Nature, and now they are caught in a bewildering tangle of modern power struggles. Has change been good, or bad for these aboriginal peoples?
The government conceptualized in 1787 was not the same as what existed in 1837. The world changed in those fifty years, and people's expectations of what their rights and government should be were different. As the nation expanded westward, new States were added and the Constitution was tested by new conditions. In 1787 the Founders believed that slavery would die of its own accord, but it didn't and compromise after compromise were necessary to accommodate competing interests. When Texas gave up its independence to join the Union, we became embroiled in a border dispute with Mexico. The Mexican War caused more questions about just what the Federal government could/should do. Less than two decades later, Lincoln suspended the Rights of Habeas Corpus, instituted an unpopular military draft, and took control over the railways and telegraph systems. People were arrested, held without bail for lengthy periods, tried by military courts martial and imprisoned or executed without public trial. After the War, the Federal government occupied and dictated how the Southern States were governed. Many Confederate soldiers were either disenfranchised, or believed that they were. This was a whole new way for American government to relate to the People.
With the Spanish-American War, the United States acquired responsibility over people in foreign lands and fought a viscous guerrilla war against Aguinaldo during the Philippine Insurrection. No quarter asked, not given in steaming jungles far from any media attention. And back home in the U.S.A., the People were confused and divided over whether we should be in the Philippines at all and what we were doing there. Under our system and philosophy of government, should we be involved in governing a foreign people until they were ready to govern themselves? Before that issue could be resolved, General Pershing was sent into Mexico pursuing Pancho Villa, even though we weren't at war with Mexico. Shock, dismay and predictions that the Constitution was being shredded.
President Wilson promised to keep us out of the European War, but a few years later he led us into it. During the Great War again civil liberties were greatly infringed. The lumber industry and coal mines were nationalized, and newspapers "dis-encouraged" to print anything critical of the government, or war-effort. Wilson, and his successors, used the power of the Federal government to stifle the fledgling Labor Movement. Without prior warning or any legal justification in Bisbee, Arizona, miners suspected of labor sympathy were rounded up before dawn. The miners and their families were herded in their nightclothes to a railroad siding, loaded on freight cars and hauled away. Who remembers that, and can you imagine that happening today anywhere in the United States?
The Great Depression and Dust Bowl uprooted hundreds of thousands, and there was no Federal government assistance to help them find food and shelter. Families were driven off farms that had existed since pioneering days, as banks foreclosed their mortgages
and then failed. Hoover was defeated for re-election, though he was personally blameless for the misery of the times. FDR, plus a host of Communist and proto-fascist opportunists, promised to put things right. It was time for a "New Deal". The problem was that almost every New Deal program was found Un-Constitutional and struck down. The President tried to alter the Supreme Court by packing it with loyal New Dealers, but failed.
WWII really changed the world, even in America where few bombs ever fell. Europe was in ruins and Stalin seized much of the old Third Reich for himself. . Communist governments were in the ascendancy in Asia, Africa, and South America. Atomic warfare became everyone's nightmare, and the Cold War was fought in the shadows for the rest of the century. All the world's colonial powers were exhausted and unable to effectively hold on to their foreign possessions. "Foreign possessions", now isn't that a quaint and obsolete term in 2006? The horrors of genocide shocked and shamed the world.
In 1950, there was no National Highway system. If you wanted to travel from San Francisco to New York, you went by rail, though a few wealthy individuals might fly across country in a couple of days. Telegrams carried important messages, and many Americans still shared a telephone party line. AM radio was the standard, and people still sat on front porches listening to comedy sit-coms. Kids played unorganized and unsupervised baseball on empty lots. Girls played with dolls and wore skirts. Controversial topics were forbidden in polite company, and polite company was expected of everyone. People read newspapers and magazines. At the movies you could still catch a vaudeville act and have a chance of winning a set of dishes. When you bought your gasoline for under a dollar, you got free S&H Gift Stamps redeemable for prizes. Rural families still used the outhouse and went to bed early because the cost of kerosene was too expensive. People smoked, and life-expectancy was maybe 71.
J. Edgar was untouchable because he held embarrassing personal files on public figures. Confessions could be coerced from defendants in filthy jails. Minorities were deprived of their civil rights. Derogatory slurs and cruel jokes were so common that most people never gave them a thought. Gossip could ruin a family, and shame kept any unusual behavior hidden behind closed doors. Spouse and child abuses went unreported, because that was family business and of no concern to the community at large. A good doctor might make $10,000 a year, and high school dropouts could go to work in the steel mills for a livable wage.
What has this all to do with the topic of the thread? Yes, we can expect that the America of the future will change from what it is today. No, the Constitution will not go away and become a "scrap of paper". Our fundamental values will endure, but they will also evolve as people's expectations and conditions press in upon us. Some people will regard our future will becoming "better", and others will feel that things are not only "worse", but headed for total melt-down. Actually, the truth will lie somewhere in between, as it always has. The courageous will be optimistic, and the fearful will want to turn the clock back to a time that never was. The world will continue to change, and humans will continue to squabble among themselves over almost infinite differences of opinion. At this time I see no evidence for believing that the United States will be replaced as a major world leader in political philosophy, military power, economics, or as THE shining light to which other Peoples aspire.
We are not any more immune to change than any Stone Age tribe, though presumably we should be better equipped to deal with it. On the other hand no one ever went broke underestimating human stupidity and lack of foresight.
BTW, I think the United States has done pretty darn well since it's inception in 1787.
Ummmm....is that a "yes" or a "no?"
georgeob1 wrote:We disagree with respect to both Kyoto and the ICC.
The last thing the political supporters of Kyoto in the U.S. wanted was more nuclear power. I don't see any realistic scenario under which we might have both accepted Kyoto and enthusiastically resumed construction of nuclear power plants.
The fact that the radical environmentalists would oppose such a move wouldn't change the fact that it would allow us to produce lots of energy and still comply with the treaty.
I don't see why we couldn't both accept Kyoto and build nuclear plants. We are close to building a new generation of nuclear plants even now.
georgeob1 wrote:I don't believe the Kyoto Treaty itself included a pollution rights trading scheme, though one could well have been added.
I don't know whether it is part of the treaty, but my understanding is that there is a carbon emissions trading scheme.
georgeob1 wrote:In the very short period during which mighty Belgium claimed similar international jurisdiction for its courts, it dealt with frivolous (but malicious in their intent) lawsuits directed against Donald Rumsfield and other U.S. government officials,
Yes, but as far as I know, they disregarded all those charges out of hand.
georgeob1 wrote:I find this a bit confusing. Empires in the modern era, from Spain and Portugual to Great Britain, France, and the Soviets worked to control and limit the trade of their colonies, delegating the provision of raw materials to the colonies and satellites and manufacture to the poarent country. That is not at all analogous to what exists now. We have a nearly world-wide syatem that is essentially competitive in nature and with very wide access to markets on all sides.
I agree that the nature of the trade ties is different. I am just saying that if our trade ties get disrupted, our empire will also collapse.
The fact that our trade ties are so different, with people being able to openly trade as they wish, is what makes our system more likely to survive. Other countries will also thrive in this system, and they will have an incentive to ensure the system continues.
georgeob1 wrote:Whether China and India "become our equals", remains to be seen. One of life's basic laws is "It's never too late to fail".
They are the ones with the greatest potential to match us.
30 years ago I never thought I'd see the end of the Soviet Union. Now I wonder if I will outlive the United States.
For the past five years or so we've been living some five billion dollars a day beyond our means. That's our combined Federal and trade deficits (not to mention all the future promises made to the Baby Boomers about to retire). All paid for with money borrowed from our friends in China, Korea and Japan. You can get away with this nonsense for a few months, or for a few years, but not indefinitely. One day this is going to end, and it will be very ugly indeed when it does.
Politicians in America have been elected for some time now by promising ever greater "benefits" to everyone, while promising to cut taxes. And the electorate somehow thinks we deserve this standard of living without having to pay or work for it. As a wiser man than I once said "If something cannot go on forever, then it will stop".
I remember seeing pictures in news magazines in the early 90s of the once feared Red Navy rusting away at port, because the new Russia couldn't afford to even maintain them. I am very much afraid history will repeat itself much sooner than any of us imagine.
I enjoy reading the postings...nice to see some old friends and some new names.
When the first Bush Treasury appointee complained to the Vice-President about the increasing debt, he commented that President Reagan proved money is not an issue. This concerns me. I don't feel comfortable with foreign powers owing so many of our treasury notes. After all, I was taught to control my spending. Perhaps, I just don't understand the economies of the world.
Very nice, compact and complete word picture from Ashereman. It tells the story and answers the question convincingly.
oralloy,
You are quibbling.
I agree that in principal we could have both Kyoto and new nuclear plants. However, as a matter of practical fact it was impossible. The political advocates of Kyoto claimed that with windmills and, as yet non-existant, technologies for solar power would replace the burning of fossil fuels. They promised to erase any remaining energy shortfalls by reguilation! They were adamantly opposed to nuclear power and, if they had won the political contest, there would be no opening whatever for the renewal of nuclear power in this country. Bush has put this issue on the national agenda, but, even with continued Republican victories, it will be a sticky matter.
In noting the different patterns of trade between the United States and that of earlier European empires, I was making the point that we don't have an empire at all. There is nothing to fall.
The first thing that came to mind while reading this thread was this:
Nature's first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf's a flower,
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.
This is a poem written by Robert Frost.
As Asherman said, the world's changing rapidly, sometimes faster than the older generations can keep up. I believe it'll keep changing bar some (very probable) incident like say, WWIII. No one can predict the future, specially not by looking at history for while humans remain basically the same, we've got spanking new toys now. (And a whole lotta arrogance) We certainly can't look towards the future with the same eyes we see the present. (Eat my shorts Santayana)
I think people on this thread are not taking into account just how much random or unintended events can alter the present. Had anyone in the past been able to predict the major (unfavorable) social events that shaped our world, where would we be? Whatever lessons history had to teach us, we've ignored most and what the present says about us as a whole, well it ain't pretty.
So to answer the first poster's question it seems probable to me that the US's power will diminish, but it's hard to say.
Also, there's something that America as a whole doesn't seem to care about; the amount of countries that would like nothing more than rip the US to shreds at the first sign of weakness. It is also kinda scary how many people I talk to that seem to dislike America in general, but that's neither here nor there.
The United States doesn't realize just how dependant of other countries it is, specially if we intend to keep our standard of living.
*edit* By the way, I'm sixteen so I'll probably be alive when most of you are long dead. :wink: I'll take the five O'clock time trip and tell you how it goes.
I was appreciating the exchange of thoughts and then.....quiet. Have we exhausted this thread or are there some more interesting threads out there?
Mapleleaf wrote:I was appreciating the exchange of thoughts and then.....quiet. Have we exhausted this thread or are there some more interesting threads out there?
Sorry. The real world took my attention away from the internet for awhile.
