Yes, I know.
It’s a link to Huffington Post, which will send half of PWI into a paroxysm of scoffing for that reason alone.
Worth a read nonetheless.
Oh, well. Fun while it lasted. Maybe Jesus will come back before then, and save our bacon. You never know.
I’m suprised it took until the third paragraph to blame former President Bush.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’m suprised it took until the third paragraph to blame former President Bush. [/quote]
I’ll be more surprised if most posters here read past that.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’m suprised it took until the third paragraph to blame former President Bush. [/quote]
I’ll be more surprised if most posters here read past that. [/quote]
We both know most will not.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’m suprised it took until the third paragraph to blame former President Bush. [/quote]
I’ll be more surprised if most posters here read past that. [/quote]
Oh…There was more?!
Copy what China does, then. For this age, apparently they understand how to ramp up and maximize political, military, and economic might.
But why does the article imagine a “far right patriot” leader taking us off the edge? The only evidence I see, as the crunch is felt more and more, is a sharp left-wing shift in mood…
I think it’s pretty obvious America will not maintain sole super power status for long. It makes sense and is probably better for 2, 3, or even several powers to coexist. I forget the pol-sci term for it.
A lot of the article sensationalist junk to sell his book though. At least that’s my opinion of the piece.
One thing the article ignores, or at least fails to touch on, is that China and India will go through their own “growing pains” much like the U.S. did. How that will shape the global politcial landscape is difficult to predict at best. The article takes as fact that China and India’s economies will out grow the U.S., however, that remains to be seen.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
But why does the article imagine a “far right patriot” leader taking us off the edge? The only evidence I see, as the crunch is felt more and more, is a sharp left-wing shift in mood…
[/quote]
For the same reason this is all Bush’s fault.
How do we go from a narrative about an underfunded government, and widening class inequality…
“Faced with a fading superpower incapable of paying the bills, China, India, Iran, Russia, and other powers, great and regional, provocatively challenge U.S. dominion over the oceans, space, and cyberspace. Meanwhile, amid soaring prices, ever-rising unemployment, and a continuing decline in real wages, domestic divisions widen into violent clashes and divisive debates, often over remarkably irrelevant issues.”
To this?
“Riding a political tide of disillusionment and despair, a far-right patriot captures the presidency with thundering rhetoric, demanding respect for American authority and threatening military retaliation or economic reprisal. The world pays next to no attention as the American Century ends in silence.”
The former passage sounds more like the perfect storm for accelerating the coming of the might-as-well-be-permanent progressive dominance. Government can no longer pay the bills? The greedy wealthy not paying enough. Unemployment, and declining wages? The greedy wealthy are trying to do more with less, while paying less. Tax them more, for their greed.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’m suprised it took until the third paragraph to blame former President Bush. [/quote]
I’ll be more surprised if most posters here read past that. [/quote]
We both know most will not. [/quote]
Based on the posts in the thread, I don’t have to even click on it to know it isn’t worth the time I have, lol.
Good article, but a bit misleading.
The Oil Shock - The US is now producing more oil locally and China has to import almost all of its oil. Of Course China will consume more oil internationally. The US is now exporting LNG. The US pretty much has the other half of the Natural Gas in the world.
Oil Shock 2025 - The US is not importing as much oil as it once did. The only reason we import oil is because it is cheaper.
Everything else seems a bit far fetched, but also plausible. Do I think America will be around forever? No.
How do we go from a narrative about an underfunded government, and widening class inequality…
“Faced with a fading superpower incapable of paying the bills, China, India, Iran, Russia, and other powers, great and regional, provocatively challenge U.S. dominion over the oceans, space, and cyberspace. Meanwhile, amid soaring prices, ever-rising unemployment, and a continuing decline in real wages, domestic divisions widen into violent clashes and divisive debates, often over remarkably irrelevant issues.”
To this?
“Riding a political tide of disillusionment and despair, a far-right patriot captures the presidency with thundering rhetoric, demanding respect for American authority and threatening military retaliation or economic reprisal. The world pays next to no attention as the American Century ends in silence.”
The former passage sounds more like the perfect storm for accelerating the coming of the might-as-well-be-permanent progressive dominance. Government can no longer pay the bills? The greedy wealthy not paying enough. Unemployment, and declining wages? The greedy wealthy are trying to do more with less, while paying less. Tax them more, for their greed.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
One thing the article ignores, or at least fails to touch on, is that China and India will go through their own “growing pains” much like the U.S. did. How that will shape the global politcial landscape is difficult to predict at best. The article takes as fact that China and India’s economies will out grow the U.S., however, that remains to be seen. [/quote]
It also fails to state that both India and China are actually using Capitalism to grow their countries economies. They both learned that Socialism does not work to grow an economy. It only helps to control the people. We had it right and then turned to what does not work. If we get back to the basics we can turn this around. It will hurt a lot, but it is necessary to change this ship’s direction.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Copy what China does, then. For this age, apparently they understand how to ramp up and maximize political, military, and economic might.
But why does the article imagine a “far right patriot” leader taking us off the edge? The only evidence I see, as the crunch is felt more and more, is a sharp left-wing shift in mood…
[/quote]
+1
No problem if it’s from the Huffington Post…even a stopped Clock is right
twice a day, but the ancient texts already prophesized a NWO and what will
proceed it, like moral decline, people waxing cold, and an exponential increase of
knowledge at some point in time…keep in mind that the main method of transportation on land
for Centuries up until recently in this hemisphere other than one’s two legs was the fucking Horse,
even with some ‘Choo Choo’s’ around.
BUT some people just need to be reminded of news like this sometimes and it’s totally understood,
well written article BTW.
YYYYAAAAAAWWWWWN…Wake me up later, I’m gonna get some more beauty sleep.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I think it’s pretty obvious America will not maintain sole super power status for long. It makes sense and is probably better for 2, 3, or even several powers to coexist. I forget the pol-sci term for it.
A lot of the article sensationalist junk to sell his book though. At least that’s my opinion of the piece.
[/quote]
Multi-polarity. It actually increases the probability of conflict in the international system, particularly in unbalanced multi-polarity, in which one state’s relative power is markedly greater than that of its peers.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I think it’s pretty obvious America will not maintain sole super power status for long. It makes sense and is probably better for 2, 3, or even several powers to coexist. I forget the pol-sci term for it.
A lot of the article sensationalist junk to sell his book though. At least that’s my opinion of the piece.
[/quote]
Multi-polarity. It actually increases the probability of conflict in the international system, particularly in unbalanced multi-polarity, in which one state’s relative power is markedly greater than that of its peers. [/quote]
Beat me to it.
Yyyyep, relatedly:
"Man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, Liberty contracts.‘’
Ronald Reagan.
Based on what I know, China and India are apt to collapse under the weight of its social issues long before it even has an opportunity to challenge the U.S. superpower status.
So what if they have most of the manufacturing jobs. This isn’t the 1950s-70s.