|
|
Post by americanpride on Apr 4, 2005 11:03:42 GMT -8
I was talking to James yesterday (3 APR 2005) concerning the world economic system. It should go without saying that he and I disagreed as to what the future of this system should look like.
Where he saw opportunity, I saw disaster. Where he saw security, I saw threat. Indeed, America's economic fortunes are dependent on nations without vertically or horizontally aligned interests, objectives, and policies. I find it most stressing to consider that our economic well-being is dependent on authoritarian China. Our Republic has put its security in the hands of a wolf.
Therefore, instead of globalization, our pursuit should be Americanization of the global market in order to establish an independent American economy. This is to say that the United States should actively pursue an economic policy of free trade with nations who have accepted America's political and economic principles of democracy, liberty, and the free market. In contrast, nations who do not accept or meet this requirements (i.e. China) would face sanctions, tariffs, and less than preferential economic treatment. In essence, such an organization would be a formal "commonwealth" between the United States and like-minded states, with an inter-dependent "global" market between them. Necessarily, states not in accordance with these noble principles would be left outside looking in, their resources traded for when needed, but never to the point of dependence upon them.
An integral aspect of this policy must be the assertion of America into it's imperial role. No longer can economic threats to America's stability be tolerated - as we become less dependent on the Third World, our political options become more flexible in regards to them. In pursuant of this policy, the United States must necessarily expand its "commonwealth" - to states that desire admittance, but also to strategic states that may not desire it.This would require the projection of military power to assert control over their land, populations, and resources, followed by a sustained development program to "bring them up to speed", opening a new market for American goods, but also improving the welfare of the newly "conquered" people.
Indeed, with the combined globalization of the economy and the fragmentation of political states (51 in 1945 to 190+ in 2005), a more assertative and integrated political-economic policy is required. In essence, this policy is analogous to the gated communities you find in every American city - an affluent neighborhood of like-minded persons protected from and not dependent on the ghettos of the 'outside' world.
Argument made simple:
Interest: Preservation of the Republic and its hegemonic position
Objective: Secure American political, economic, and military superiority
Policy: Creation of a "commonwealth" of democratic free market states
Strategy: Assert America's political, economic, and military power abroad
|
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Apr 4, 2005 11:34:49 GMT -8
I was talking to James yesterday (3 APR 2005) concerning the world economic system. It should go without saying that he and I disagreed as to what the future of this system should look like. Where he saw opportunity, I saw disaster. Where he saw security, I saw threat. Indeed, America's economic fortunes are dependent on nations without vertically or horizontally aligned interests, objectives, and policies. I find it most stressing to consider that our economic well-being is dependent on authoritarian China. Our Republic has put its security in the hands of a wolf. Therefore, instead of globalization, our pursuit should be Americanization of the global market in order to establish an independent American economy. This is to say that the United States should actively pursue an economic policy of free trade with nations who have accepted America's political and economic principles of democracy, liberty, and the free market. In contrast, nations who do not accept or meet this requirements (i.e. China) would face sanctions, tariffs, and less than preferential economic treatment. In essence, such an organization would be a formal "commonwealth" between the United States and like-minded states, with an inter-dependent "global" market between them. Necessarily, states not in accordance with these noble principles would be left outside looking in, their resources traded for when needed, but never to the point of dependence upon them. An integral aspect of this policy must be the assertion of America into it's imperial role. No longer can economic threats to America's stability be tolerated - as we become less dependent on the Third World, our political options become more flexible in regards to them. In pursuant of this policy, the United States must necessarily expand its "commonwealth" - to states that desire admittance, but also to strategic states that may not desire it.This would require the projection of military power to assert control over their land, populations, and resources, followed by a sustained development program to "bring them up to speed", opening a new market for American goods, but also improving the welfare of the newly "conquered" people. Indeed, with the combined globalization of the economy and the fragmentation of political states (51 in 1945 to 190+ in 2005), a more assertative and integrated political-economic policy is required. In essence, this policy is analogous to the gated communities you find in every American city - an affluent neighborhood of like-minded persons protected from and not dependent on the ghettos of the 'outside' world. Argument made simple: Interest: Preservation of the Republic and its hegemonic position Objective: Secure American political, economic, and military superiority Policy: Creation of a "commonwealth" of democratic free market states Strategy: Assert America's political, economic, and military power abroad There's only one problem I have with your system Chris, and I've told you this many times before. America relies, indeed survives, on the economies of countries that we don't necessarily approve of. For example, we get roughly 15% of our imports from PRC. Saudi Arabia holds large amounts of government bonds and are, in essence, paying for portions of our budget. Countries all over the world invest in the dollar, which is why it is still (and will be for the near future) the world's currency. Economics is something you cannot do on your own. Peck will be the first person to tell you that we need foreign investment to keep our country afloat. If every country that owned government bonds suddenly withdrew their investment, we would be in a tight spot. The dollar is respected around the world because it is a largely stable currency and it has the world's strongest economy backing it up. That's why the Euro will never replace us - the political arena is too turbulent. But if you start excluding America from the global market, countries will shy away from investing in us. Just as America relies on dictators to further our political agenda (Pakistan and Uzbekistan come to mind right away), we also rely on tyrannical countries to keep our economy afloat. There is no changing that simple fact. The best course of action, IMHO, is to allow these countries to reform themselves by showing them what Capitalism can do for them. PRC has seen what Capitalism has done for Taiwan, Hong Kong, Beijing and Shangai. Do you honestly think they will remain Communist after seeing the economic miracle known as Hong Kong? It's only been 14 years since the death of Communism - but the world is naturally moving in a Capitalist direction. When was the last time a country fell to Communism? Compare that with the influx of Capitalism all over the world thanks to globalization. Capitalism is an inevitability that no one can escape from. It's time to stop fighting against it and instead fully embrace globalization in all of its forms. |
|
|
|
Post by americanpride on Apr 4, 2005 11:50:53 GMT -8
There was once a time when America was the world's leading creditor. What happened?
James, you are misunderstanding my argument. I am not saying that we cut off all foriegn investment or loaning, etc. I am saying we limit the extent of that investment or loaning to nation's with vertically aligned interests; particularly democratic free market states (Japan, Australia, UK, Poland, etc). Such a course would be the only assurance of sustained US dominance and the continued vitality of the Republic far into the future.
We cannot rely upon the ambitions and interests of others; indeed our security cannot be entrusted to those of foriegn interests. With my proposal, I only aim to consolidate America's political, economic, and military power.
|
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Apr 4, 2005 13:39:10 GMT -8
There was once a time when America was the world's leading creditor. What happened? James, you are misunderstanding my argument. I am not saying that we cut off all foriegn investment or loaning, etc. I am saying we limit the extent of that investment or loaning to nation's with vertically aligned interests; particularly democratic free market states (Japan, Australia, UK, Poland, etc). Such a course would be the only assurance of sustained US dominance and the continued vitality of the Republic far into the future. We cannot rely upon the ambitions and interests of others; indeed our security cannot be entrusted to those of foriegn interests. With my proposal, I only aim to consolidate America's political, economic, and military power. What you talk about is great but not possible. Again, how would you replace the amount of money that Saudi Arabia has invested in this country? Or any of the foreign countries that invest in us whom we don't necessarily approve of? You can't just have the Treasury print billions upon billions of dollars to make up for the difference. Inflation would sky-rocket, the dollar would sink and our entire economy would go in the toilet. You cannot exist in a bubble in the global marketplace. Countries and individual investors are able to invest in America and we have prospered because of it. This has nothing to do with being a debtor or creditor nation. People invest in the dollar because its the strongest currency out there - that's a fact of life. When you try to cut off the world's second strongest economy, you're going to run into problems... |
|
|
|
Post by americanpride on Apr 4, 2005 18:07:49 GMT -8
What you talk about is great but not possible. Again, how would you replace the amount of money that Saudi Arabia has invested in this country? Or any of the foreign countries that invest in us whom we don't necessarily approve of? You can't just have the Treasury print billions upon billions of dollars to make up for the difference. Inflation would sky-rocket, the dollar would sink and our entire economy would go in the toilet. You cannot exist in a bubble in the global marketplace. Countries and individual investors are able to invest in America and we have prospered because of it. This has nothing to do with being a debtor or creditor nation. People invest in the dollar because its the strongest currency out there - that's a fact of life. When you try to cut off the world's second strongest economy, you're going to run into problems... The short-term key of course is to reverse the decision made in the 1970s to remove the USD from the gold standard, or through any method of solidifying the value of the USD and stabilizing its value, also ensuring that the only change in its value will be increasing. That is how we control inflation. We can encourage greater investment in the United States by creating this 'commonwealth' which would direct the resources and capital of our trading and political allies into our nation, and vice versa, rather into Third World dumpsters like China. Consequently, this will have the result of consolidating US economic gains, and permit us to further develop our overwhelming military strength. The military will then be employed to open new markets in third world countries by occupying them, seizing control of their populations, land, and resources, and providing the stability necessary for American and First World investment into their countries. Yes, this is imperialism - capitalism with gunboats. But it is necessary for our security and sustained dominance. |
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Apr 4, 2005 18:26:07 GMT -8
The short-term key of course is to reverse the decision made in the 1970s to remove the USD from the gold standard, or through any method of solidifying the value of the USD and stabilizing its value, also ensuring that the only change in its value will be increasing. That is how we control inflation. We can encourage greater investment in the United States by creating this 'commonwealth' which would direct the resources and capital of our trading and political allies into our nation, and vice versa, rather into Third World dumpsters like China. Consequently, this will have the result of consolidating US economic gains, and permit us to further develop our overwhelming military strength. The military will then be employed to open new markets in third world countries by occupying them, seizing control of their populations, land, and resources, and providing the stability necessary for American and First World investment into their countries. Yes, this is imperialism - capitalism with gunboats. But it is necessary for our security and sustained dominance. Whoa....stop right there. You want to put America back on the gold standard? There isn't enough gold in this country to back our money - that's also a fact of life. If there were ever like a massive margin call where every country in the world demanded that we pay them their investment, it wouldn't be possible. The only reason that our currency is still so strong is because of the economy that backs it up and the stability of the USG. The radical policies that you speak of would destroy not only the American economy, but also the standing of the dollar in the world. |
|
|
|
Post by americanpride on Apr 4, 2005 20:38:03 GMT -8
Whoa....stop right there. You want to put America back on the gold standard? There isn't enough gold in this country to back our money - that's also a fact of life. If there were ever like a massive margin call where every country in the world demanded that we pay them their investment, it wouldn't be possible. The only reason that our currency is still so strong is because of the economy that backs it up and the stability of the USG. The radical policies that you speak of would destroy not only the American economy, but also the standing of the dollar in the world. No - I did not specifically state that we should return to the gold standard. I stated more or less that we should fix the value of the USD, while still retaining a degree of flexibility. The value of our currency cannot be left up to the whims of the market - our dollar is not a commodity, it is an object of exchange, and should therefore not be restrained by the passions of the consumers. |
|
|
|
Post by MARIO on Apr 4, 2005 21:01:52 GMT -8
Whoa....stop right there. You want to put America back on the gold standard? There isn't enough gold in this country to back our money - that's also a fact of life. If there were ever like a massive margin call where every country in the world demanded that we pay them their investment, it wouldn't be possible. The only reason that our currency is still so strong is because of the economy that backs it up and the stability of the USG. The radical policies that you speak of would destroy not only the American economy, but also the standing of the dollar in the world. Why wouldn't you support our dollar being linked to the gold standard, james? Ever since Nixon took us off the gold standard, inflation has been a persistent problem. It would also control government expenditures. |
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Apr 4, 2005 21:04:07 GMT -8
No - I did not specifically state that we should return to the gold standard. I stated more or less that we should fix the value of the USD, while still retaining a degree of flexibility. The value of our currency cannot be left up to the whims of the market - our dollar is not a commodity, it is an object of exchange, and should therefore not be restrained by the passions of the consumers. OK, so now you want to fix the currency of the USD? Do you honestly ever consider the implications of your actions before you speak? |
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Apr 4, 2005 21:06:10 GMT -8
Why wouldn't you support our dollar being linked to the gold standard, james? Ever since Nixon took us off the gold standard, inflation has been a persistent problem. It would also control government expenditures. Mario, it's not possible to back up our money with gold. There simply isn't enough of it in this country to cover our currency with. If we put ourselves back on the gold standard, we would be lying to the rest of the world. But neither is Europe on the gold standard - most countries aren't. |
|
|
|
Post by MARIO on Apr 4, 2005 21:10:58 GMT -8
Mario, it's not possible to back up our money with gold. There simply isn't enough of it in this country to cover our currency with. If we put ourselves back on the gold standard, we would be lying to the rest of the world. But neither is Europe on the gold standard - most countries aren't. Paper money should ALWAYS be backed by something. We operated on the gold standard for years. FDR did some things to unsettle that balance in the 1930's and Nixon took us off officially when he was Prez. The result has been persistent periods of inflation, government spending out of control, etc. The government and the Fed loves the fact that we don't have our money linked to the gold standard. They spend like drunken sailors. And what exactly do you mean when you say we don't have enough gold in this country to cover our currency with? Later james. |
|
|
|
Post by americanpride on Apr 5, 2005 5:00:16 GMT -8
OK, so now you want to fix the currency of the USD? Why not? It would secure the purchasing power of America's citizens and allow me to return to the good ole days when gas prices were closer to a dollar. I think we should fix the value of the USD (after the proper calculations of course), and allow its value to increase yearly (and steadily) based on market factors. Our dollar is NOT a commodity. |
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Apr 5, 2005 10:42:02 GMT -8
Paper money should ALWAYS be backed by something. We operated on the gold standard for years. FDR did some things to unsettle that balance in the 1930's and Nixon took us off officially when he was Prez. The result has been persistent periods of inflation, government spending out of control, etc. The government and the Fed loves the fact that we don't have our money linked to the gold standard. They spend like drunken sailors. And what exactly do you mean when you say we don't have enough gold in this country to cover our currency with? Later james. Paper money is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. Not to mention the economy that goes along with it. I don't advocate going back onto the gold standard because of simple facts of life - there isn't enough gold to back up the amount of money that we have printed over the years. If you want to back up our money with something, you better start telling the Treasury to stop printing more greenbacks. |
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Apr 5, 2005 10:43:00 GMT -8
Why not? It would secure the purchasing power of America's citizens and allow me to return to the good ole days when gas prices were closer to a dollar. I think we should fix the value of the USD (after the proper calculations of course), and allow its value to increase yearly (and steadily) based on market factors. Our dollar is NOT a commodity. Capitalist countries cannot fix their currency. Currencies are openly traded on the free-market like any other good or service. If you fixed the currency, no one would invest in the dollar or America anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by americanpride on Apr 5, 2005 12:31:43 GMT -8
Capitalist countries cannot fix their currency. Currencies are openly traded on the free-market like any other good or service. If you fixed the currency, no one would invest in the dollar or America anymore. That's why I said we ensure that the only change is an increase in its value. Everyone would invest if guaranteed a positive return. |
|
