The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Pomegranate12 on January 11, 2021, 04:04:37 AM
-
It is clear the American Empire is ending, it has been said that an Empires end is filled with just bad news everyday so much that it will be common place and won't shock you. (I think we reached that point)
We are now a joke to the world, we can't even provide healthcare to our citizens but we have millions of missles and 11 air craft carriers. This is a sign of an empire that is over stretched and dying
Do you see yourself moving abroad once FIRED to escape the collapse ?
-
There would need to be significant instability for me to leave the US.
I don't fear for my life by venturing outside. There's a lot of job opportunities. I'm well paid here and my family and friends are here.
It's getting worse though everyday at this rate I give it 5 years
-
There would need to be significant instability for me to leave the US.
I don't fear for my life by venturing outside. There's a lot of job opportunities. I'm well paid here and my family and friends are here.
It's getting worse though everyday at this rate I give it 5 years
Sounds like you need a dose of optimism (https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/10/03/the-practical-benefits-of-outrageous-optimism/) :)
Empires may eventually end, but the cities/countries/etc usually continue to exist in one form or another afterwards. The US will continue to be a powerful, influential country for a long time to come, even if there is increased internal turmoil (although if a civil war breaks out, all bets are off).
Rome still exists, long after the Roman Empire itself ceased to exist.
-
There would need to be significant instability for me to leave the US.
I don't fear for my life by venturing outside. There's a lot of job opportunities. I'm well paid here and my family and friends are here.
It's getting worse though everyday at this rate I give it 5 years
Sounds like you need a dose of optimism (https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/10/03/the-practical-benefits-of-outrageous-optimism/) :)
Empires may eventually end, but the cities/countries/etc usually continue to exist in one form or another afterwards. The US will continue to be a powerful, influential country for a long time to come, even if there is increased internal turmoil (although if a civil war breaks out, all bets are off).
Rome still exists, long after the Roman Empire itself ceased to exist.
Yea but do you want to live in a crumbling society ???
-
There would need to be significant instability for me to leave the US.
I don't fear for my life by venturing outside. There's a lot of job opportunities. I'm well paid here and my family and friends are here.
It's getting worse though everyday at this rate I give it 5 years
Sounds like you need a dose of optimism (https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/10/03/the-practical-benefits-of-outrageous-optimism/) :)
Empires may eventually end, but the cities/countries/etc usually continue to exist in one form or another afterwards. The US will continue to be a powerful, influential country for a long time to come, even if there is increased internal turmoil (although if a civil war breaks out, all bets are off).
Rome still exists, long after the Roman Empire itself ceased to exist.
Though Rome lost about 90% of its population over about 100 years...
-
I recommend reading a book about the rebuilding of Europe post-1945. Humans will muddle through in the end.
-
There would need to be significant instability for me to leave the US.
I don't fear for my life by venturing outside. There's a lot of job opportunities. I'm well paid here and my family and friends are here.
It's getting worse though everyday at this rate I give it 5 years
Sounds like you need a dose of optimism (https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/10/03/the-practical-benefits-of-outrageous-optimism/) :)
Empires may eventually end, but the cities/countries/etc usually continue to exist in one form or another afterwards. The US will continue to be a powerful, influential country for a long time to come, even if there is increased internal turmoil (although if a civil war breaks out, all bets are off).
Rome still exists, long after the Roman Empire itself ceased to exist.
Though Rome lost about 90% of its population over about 100 years...
Bad example then.
Still, I'm optimistic that the US will survive, continue to innovate and continue to attract some of the world's smartest people.
-
It is clear the American Empire is ending, it has been said that an Empires end is filled with just bad news everyday so much that it will be common place and won't shock you. (I think we reached that point)
We are now a joke to the world, we can't even provide healthcare to our citizens but we have millions of missles and 11 air craft carriers. This is a sign of an empire that is over stretched and dying
Do you see yourself moving abroad once FIRED to escape the collapse ?
LOL. Your post is ridiculous and nonsense.
-
It is clear the American Empire is ending, it has been said that an Empires end is filled with just bad news everyday so much that it will be common place and won't shock you. (I think we reached that point)
We are now a joke to the world, we can't even provide healthcare to our citizens but we have millions of missles and 11 air craft carriers. This is a sign of an empire that is over stretched and dying
Do you see yourself moving abroad once FIRED to escape the collapse ?
LOL. Your post is ridiculous and nonsense.
Explain why
-
I have felt this way for my entire adult life. I was in college during 9/11 and the Iraq war. It really felt like things were falling apart then. I had hope for Obama but he was unable to address some of the longstanding issues of wealth disparity and racism. The lack of healthcare is a crying shame, and bad for the economy too. I live in a well-off area and I've seen a huge increase in homelessness lately. It even affected some of my relatives.
Now, due to the incompetence of our officials, we have a 9/11 every day from Covid deaths, and nobody seems outraged by this. It's just keep calm and carry on over here.
I do have hope for the next administration. I would be very happy if we can stop tying healthcare to employment. I think that part of the reason people are not getting involved in politics is that they are afraid they will lose their jobs, and thus their healthcare, if they speak out too much and their boss disagrees with them. I have worked at a place where one could be fired for publicly criticizing the institution or it's views. A couple of things happened in 2020 that I really wanted to criticize them for, but I didn't. I am the sole breadwinner in my house and also the insurance carrier, so I have to be careful. This is part of what is driving me to seek financial independence!!!
I have dual citizenship with the UK too, if things really hit the fan. My profession is paid a lot more in the US though, and my family is mostly here. The political situation in the UK is not so great either.
-
It would be pretty cool if the American Empire were ending, but we won't be so lucky.
The chances of Puerto Rico, one of the country's last colonial outposts, becoming a permanent part of the USA has never been higher.
Trump for all this faults, didn't start and new wars. He's the first President since Carter, or Ford depending how you count Afghanistan< who can say that. Get ready for a return to normal as the Biden-Harris administration goes looking for trouble.
I do predict that Biden will be less bellicose with Iran, so that's one small ray of sunshine. But everywhere else from Russia, to the Nine Dash Line, to Syria, to Afghanistan look for more of the same.
-
The collapse could bring unique opportunities for those who don’t run and hide.
-
You might consider reading The Lessons Of History by Will and Ariel Durant and The Better Angels Of Our Nature by Steven Pinker. Things aren't as bad as the Guardian, NYT, Wash Post, etc. would have us believe, any more than FOX and Breitbart would have us believe. Doom and gloom just get more clicks. America is in decline, but it's still the best place on earth to live. We also live in the best period in history to live. And everything is getting better. Enjoy life!
-
You might consider reading The Lessons Of History by Will and Ariel Durant and The Better Angels Of Our Nature by Steven Pinker. Things aren't as bad as the Guardian, NYT, Wash Post, etc. would have us believe, any more than FOX and Breitbart would have us believe. Doom and gloom just get more clicks. America is in decline, but it's still the best place on earth to live. We also live in the best period in history to live. And everything is getting better. Enjoy life!
We are number 15 in the quality of life index, it most definitely is not the best place on earth to live
-
You might consider reading The Lessons Of History by Will and Ariel Durant and The Better Angels Of Our Nature by Steven Pinker. Things aren't as bad as the Guardian, NYT, Wash Post, etc. would have us believe, any more than FOX and Breitbart would have us believe. Doom and gloom just get more clicks. America is in decline, but it's still the best place on earth to live. We also live in the best period in history to live. And everything is getting better. Enjoy life!
+1
I read Pinker and totally agree. The reason we are getting bad news everyday is that we can. Ppl have more access to media than ever before and the press is absolutly free to report on every nook and cranny of society. Used to be there were things they just wouldn't print to protect the dignity of the office. Some things were just off limits. I'll be more worried when the news stops coming--that would mean that some one extremely powerful is running the media or that they are better than anyone at hiding things.
As far as health care, this is not new to this time. Healthcare was never provided in the US before. That we are making an effort now is good news.
It's just a different time. We can't compare it to the fall of the Roman Empire or even the sun finally settleling on the British empire. Even if the US loses its influence as a world leader, that doesn't mean a crumbling society. We don't have to run the world to be a nice place to live.
-
You might consider reading The Lessons Of History by Will and Ariel Durant and The Better Angels Of Our Nature by Steven Pinker. Things aren't as bad as the Guardian, NYT, Wash Post, etc. would have us believe, any more than FOX and Breitbart would have us believe. Doom and gloom just get more clicks. America is in decline, but it's still the best place on earth to live. We also live in the best period in history to live. And everything is getting better. Enjoy life!
From a global perspective, I would also add Factfulness, by Hans Rosling.
-
The chances of Puerto Rico, one of the country's last colonial outposts, becoming a permanent part of the USA has never been higher.
Keep in mind that unlike European colonies, Puerto Ricans are citizens of the realm (with the same passport) and their currency is the coin of the realm. They are also protected under the same Constitution as the citizens on the mainland. They are also allowed to vote immediately upon moving to one of the 50 states. The dominant language of government and commerce is also the same (ex-colonial) language as when the Americans took stewardship.
None of these factors were the case during European colonization, so to paint with the same broad brush strokes of 'colonization' is less than accurate.
-
Agreed. Income inequality is tearing us apart along with social media and right wing news bubbles.
-
The chances of Puerto Rico, one of the country's last colonial outposts, becoming a permanent part of the USA has never been higher.
Keep in mind that unlike European colonies, Puerto Ricans are citizens of the realm (with the same passport) and their currency is the coin of the realm. They are also protected under the same Constitution as the citizens on the mainland. They are also allowed to vote immediately upon moving to one of the 50 states. The dominant language of government and commerce is also the same (ex-colonial) language as when the Americans took stewardship.
None of these factors were the case during European colonization, so to paint with the same broad brush strokes of 'colonization' is less than accurate.
The US "won" Puerto Rico in a war of Imperialism against Spain. The justification was we needed to be able to defend the approaches of the soon-to-be-built Panama Canal (another US colonial possession that thankfully we no longer own) from the Kaiser's Fleet (which also no longer exists). It's all a bunch of Great Game nonsense.
-
Since this is a suggested reading list , the novella Candide, by Voltaire comes to mind.
At the very least it might provide comic relief.
-
I guess I would suggest reading "Shooting an Elephant" by George Orwell.
Now personally I am not a US citizen but I do live in country that has been heavily influenced by the USA. When you look at it from the outside it seems that there are relatively few problems that need to be fixed:
1. Abolish the electorial college and replace it with a popular vote.
2. End the two-party system. Typically the democracies with more than two political parties do better and represent their citizens better. My own country (Denmark) has around 10 political parties going from the far left to the far right. So everybody can find a political that suits their tastes and cooperation between parties is 100% required to pass any laws.
3. Lower the wealth/income gap through taxation of the top X % and redistribution.
4. Institute massive investments in social programmes to improve the lives of unemployed people etc. , and as an added bonus is that when people feel secure they are less likely to believe conspiracy theories.
5. Universal healthcare - for crying out loud please join the 20th century already..
I would advise looking to Scandinavia or the Netherlands for inspiration.
Now don't get me wrong, the problems listed above are mammoth problems but they are not insurmountable.
Also the USA has some enormous strengths that are overlooked such as an abundance of resources, economic influence and military might (although cutting military spending might be a good idea).
I also believe that a politically stable USA would find that their old allies and partners are quite willing to both trade and exchange ideas and support. If we could find a way back to EU/USA standing together then China would have a formidable opponent in global politics.
To sum up, I don't think it's the end of the line for USA. But there is a bumpy road ahead and you know things are bad when the rest of the world starts referring to your country as "Dumbfuckistan".
-
I guess I would suggest reading "Shooting an Elephant" by George Orwell.
Now personally I am not a US citizen but I do live in country that has been heavily influenced by the USA. When you look at it from the outside it seems that there are relatively few problems that need to be fixed:
1. Abolish the electorial college and replace it with a popular vote.
2. End the two-party system. Typically the democracies with more than two political parties do better and represent their citizens better. My own country (Denmark) has around 10 political parties going from the far left to the far right. So everybody can find a political that suits their tastes and cooperation between parties is 100% required to pass any laws.
3. Lower the wealth/income gap through taxation of the top X % and redistribution.
4. Institute massive investments in social programmes to improve the lives of unemployed people etc. , and as an added bonus is that when people feel secure they are less likely to believe conspiracy theories.
5. Universal healthcare - for crying out loud please join the 20th century already..
I would advise looking to Scandinavia or the Netherlands for inspiration.
Now don't get me wrong, the problems listed above are mammoth problems but they are not insurmountable.
Also the USA has some enormous strengths that are overlooked such as an abundance of resources, economic influence and military might (although cutting military spending might be a good idea).
I also believe that a politically stable USA would find that their old allies and partners are quite willing to both trade and exchange ideas and support. If we could find a way back to EU/USA standing together then China would have a formidable opponent in global politics.
To sum up, I don't think it's the end of the line for USA. But there is a bumpy road ahead and you know things are bad when the rest of the world starts referring to your country as "Dumbfuckistan".
You are spot on but none of that will ever happen here in my lifetime.
1. It's labeled socialism and there is a deep fear in this country of a term people do not understand.
2. Money in politics will not allow an end of the 2 party system
3. Money in politics is one of our biggest political issues in this country that trickles down to almost all problems imo
-
I guess I would suggest reading "Shooting an Elephant" by George Orwell.
Now personally I am not a US citizen but I do live in country that has been heavily influenced by the USA. When you look at it from the outside it seems that there are relatively few problems that need to be fixed:
The points you've raised are things that I think most Democrats are in support of, and most Republicans/Conservative/Trumpers are not in favor of.
With regard to eliminating the Electoral College system -- The Republican/Conservative/Trumper faction currently benefits from the E.C. system, as it has allowed them to control the presidency (or be in a closer position to control the presidency), simply due to how the the population of the country is distributed geographically. ("Tyranny of the Minority.")
With regard to all the other points -- about strengthening or creating social programs and infrastructure -- those things are frequently labeled as Socialism/Communism by the Republican/Conservative/Trumper faction.
-
The chances of Puerto Rico, one of the country's last colonial outposts, becoming a permanent part of the USA has never been higher.
Keep in mind that unlike European colonies, Puerto Ricans are citizens of the realm (with the same passport) and their currency is the coin of the realm. They are also protected under the same Constitution as the citizens on the mainland. They are also allowed to vote immediately upon moving to one of the 50 states. The dominant language of government and commerce is also the same (ex-colonial) language as when the Americans took stewardship.
None of these factors were the case during European colonization, so to paint with the same broad brush strokes of 'colonization' is less than accurate.
The US "won" Puerto Rico in a war of Imperialism against Spain. The justification was we needed to be able to defend the approaches of the soon-to-be-built Panama Canal (another US colonial possession that thankfully we no longer own) from the Kaiser's Fleet (which also no longer exists). It's all a bunch of Great Game nonsense.
The above is true, yes. But, it doesn't make Puerto Rico a colony in the traditional sense of the word. It is a territory, perhaps, much like US states were classified before they became states.
In the USA, the nearest comparable for Puerto Rico is Hawaii. Similar size, similar latitude and only of interest because of their geopolitical location. No one enters the Caribbean without sailing past Puerto Rico.
-
1. Abolish the electorial college and replace it with a popular vote.
2. End the two-party system. Typically the democracies with more than two political parties do better and represent their citizens better. My own country (Denmark) has around 10 political parties going from the far left to the far right. So everybody can find a political that suits their tastes and cooperation between parties is 100% required to pass any laws.
I agree with the problems, but I disagree with your solutions.
1) There is good reason to keep the electoral college. It is necessary to keep 50 states united and represented. There is a lot of history on why it was created and what it meant for the union. What needs to be fixed is the balance of electoral votes (more in line with how it was originally founded). And more importantly, fix the gerrymandering of the districts. Both of these would be relatively easy. Popular vote would release a whole new can of worms.
2) Two party system is a mathematical end result of "first past the post" voting. We will not end the two party system until you stop the FPTP voting structure. I would support something like ranked choice voting instead.
The bottom line is that you need to interpret the US more like the EU and less like Denmark. It is too big to manage in a democratic way like you would a single EU country. Now, if we were authoritarian, it would be a different story!
-
You are spot on but none of that will ever happen here in my lifetime.
1. It's labeled socialism and there is a deep fear in this country of a term people do not understand.
2. Money in politics will not allow an end of the 2 party system
3. Money in politics is one of our biggest political issues in this country that trickles down to almost all problems imo
The events of the last 4 years may wind up fracturing the GOP right down the middle (or a 70-30 split). So you may automatically end up with more parties.
As a scandinavian and a european we sort of laugh when somebody from the US draws the "Socialism" card. First off because many confuse socialism with communism. Those are not the same.
My country (Denmark again) is a socialistic democracy meaning that we have free elections, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of expression and a capitalistic free, but well regulated, market. We also pay pretty high taxes but we consistently rank in the top 1-5 of happiest nations on the planet. I have a feeling that if we add the cost of health insurance over a lifetime then the cost of Denmark vs. The USA is not as big as it is made out to be.
Is Denmark perfect. Of course not but we have some ideas that have worked out pretty well, and so do the german, dutch, swedes, finnish and norwegians. It's just a matter of copy/paste ;)
Socialism doesn't mean the end of freedom and between pure hardcore capitalism and pure communism there is a golden path that keeps people happy and society prosperous.
-
@Pomegranate12 , if you are correct, where would you move that you think would be better off? Where do you think investments will be better off?
I do agree we may not see the same things in the future as we did in the past in the US, but I don't have an answer of where I'm confident would be "better."
-
You might consider reading The Lessons Of History by Will and Ariel Durant and The Better Angels Of Our Nature by Steven Pinker. Things aren't as bad as the Guardian, NYT, Wash Post, etc. would have us believe, any more than FOX and Breitbart would have us believe. Doom and gloom just get more clicks. America is in decline, but it's still the best place on earth to live. We also live in the best period in history to live. And everything is getting better. Enjoy life!
From a global perspective, I would also add Factfulness, by Hans Rosling.
Thanks for the recommendation!
-
It seems you are using decline of an empire as a stand in for societal decay/unrest. The two often go together, but it is not required that they always do.
In my view the most likely of the negative outcomes is that US slide into a hybrid regime (democracy/authoritarian) with a less likely negative outcome is into a full authoritarian regime. If that happens, there are two ways I see that it can go. The first is the one that grabs all the headlines, Nazi Germany. The second, and in IMO more likely of the two, is one where elections happen, but change nothing; other than that daily life is pretty much unchanged people still go to work, newspapers are still published, there is still some political dissent, people still earn a wage, and people still buy things.
On the positive side, I see the most likely outcome as holding the current status quo for an extended period of time. With the less likely case being a marked improvement by implementing at least some of the reforms mwulff mentioned.
For someone in their adult years today and living a good and/or privileged life, I expect the chances are good that they will continue to do so for the rest of their life.
In my view, many people talking about/planning to or actually leaving the US, are exercising a luxury, in that they have the resources to pick where they want to live and the skills/funds to be attractive to those places. To be clear I am not passing judgment on the decision to do so, just acknowledging that is it much easier to move to your first choice when you have money and skills/degrees/certification that are in demand than say a general laborer with minimal credentials.
In that light, to me the real questions are 1) Does the US align with my values/represent who I am? 2) If no, do I want to fight to try to change that?
-
I'd just like to point out that the largest empire in human history (England's) ended just 100 years ago. At no point in those 100 years (during WWII excepted) did England feel like it was crumbling. Or like it was unsafe to go outside. Is the era of US hegemony ending? Almost certainly. But that doesn't mean Alaric is gonna come sack NYC anytime soon.
-
I'd just like to point out that the largest empire in human history (England's) ended just 100 years ago. At no point in those 100 years (during WWII excepted) did England feel like it was crumbling. Or like it was unsafe to go outside. Is the era of US hegemony ending? Almost certainly. But that doesn't mean Alaric is gonna come sack NYC anytime soon.
Well said!
-
1. Abolish the electorial college and replace it with a popular vote.
2. End the two-party system. Typically the democracies with more than two political parties do better and represent their citizens better. My own country (Denmark) has around 10 political parties going from the far left to the far right. So everybody can find a political that suits their tastes and cooperation between parties is 100% required to pass any laws.
I agree with the problems, but I disagree with your solutions.
1) There is good reason to keep the electoral college. It is necessary to keep 50 states united and represented. There is a lot of history on why it was created and what it meant for the union. What needs to be fixed is the balance of electoral votes (more in line with how it was originally founded). And more importantly, fix the gerrymandering of the districts. Both of these would be relatively easy. Popular vote would release a whole new can of worms.
2) Two party system is a mathematical end result of "first past the post" voting. We will not end the two party system until you stop the FPTP voting structure. I would support something like ranked choice voting instead.
The bottom line is that you need to interpret the US more like the EU and less like Denmark. It is too big to manage in a democratic way like you would a single EU country. Now, if we were authoritarian, it would be a different story!
I'll accept your point about the US being more like EU than a single country. However there is a much greater cohesion between US States than EU countries. So the analogy only goes so far, as all analogies are apt to do.
1) I'll plead ignorance with regards to the electorial college's historical significance. But then it might be worth considering a different system so that there is no "Winner takes it all" situation. You could divide electoral college votes in percentage of votes received. A system that more fairly represents the people seems to be much needed.
2) Agree completely. I hope it's possible to change things.
I just hope we see more democratic representation in my lifetime. I've always been a fan of the USA, and I have travelled extensively all over the country, and I have met so many insanely nice people that welcomed us with open arms. I would hate to see that collapse and people get hurt.
-
I'd just like to point out that the largest empire in human history (England's) ended just 100 years ago. At no point in those 100 years (during WWII excepted) did England feel like it was crumbling. Or like it was unsafe to go outside. Is the era of US hegemony ending? Almost certainly. But that doesn't mean Alaric is gonna come sack NYC anytime soon.
Nah, I dont think American hegemony is coming to an end. It may feel like there's some issues in society with Donald Trump but it's not bringing the end of the USA dominance on the world stage. America's military, particularly the navy, still has no one even close to rivals. As a result America controls, and will continue to control, all flow of goods and resources across the world. This is unchanged by 4 years of Donald Trump tweets and will remain unchanged for a very long time. China is investing heavily into navy, and I expect that will be Americas biggest rival on the ocean, but they are still quite far behind. I actually think America will gain power over the next 50 years as 1) Tech innovation continues to happen, mostly in America and 2) Other countries (India, Brazil, etc.) continue to develop and become more commercialized and need more resources, those resources have to get there somehow and American controls all shipping/flow of resources.
Despite Donald Trump I am still very bullish on America as a whole. (I am Canadian but used to live in the USA).
Stop doomscrolling. There's a lot more going on out there than Donald Trump tweeting and a few thousand rioters storming the capitol building.
-
Join us for Episode two of Pomegranate12's controversial hot takes meant to stir shit up...
-
If anything, American hegemony will probably expand in the 21st century. Our largest competition in the 20th century (Russia) is essentially a petro-state with a declining population and the only reason it is still a global player is nuclear weapons and an outsized military. In the 21st century China is clearly our largest competition. However, China has deep-seated problems such as the inherent rift between the rich outward-facing coast and the poor-inward facing interior. Can the Chinese Communist Party continue to balance economic growth and social stability? They also have deep structural problems in their economy related to state-run businesses and loans. No real recessions to weed out under-performing businesses. Instead, they continue to be propped out with state-backed loans even if they would be insolvent in a market-based economy. There's also decades of demographic imbalance to deal with, i.e. ~35 million more men than women with roughly 1/4 of men having no hope of ever finding a wife or partner due to their one-child policy and years of sex-selective abortions and infanticide. Meanwhile, the U.S continues to experience population growth through births and immigration.
Economically the US still enjoys massive advantages in natural resources and geography. We have the most productive agriculture in the world and lots of infrastructure to get that food to national and international markets (river networks plus road and rail). Strong mineral resources including being essentially self-sufficient in hydrocarbons, something China is nowhere near on. The US is the #1 oil producer in the world by a large margin, approximately 20 million barrels per day which balances out our consumption that is about the same. Meanwhile, China produces about 5 million barrels per day but consumes 13, and has to import the rest. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=709&t=6
The US Dollar is the world reserve currency which brings a whole host of benefits. We're still considered the place to investment money - especially when Japan and much of Europe have negative interest rates.
We have the strongest military which helps guarantee free trade around the world.
We have a dominant culture in terms of language, entertainment, etc. How many people learn English as a second language vs. Chinese or Spanish or Arabic? (almost a billion speak English as a second language)
US Technology and higher education drive a significant part of global innovation. China may make a lot of stuff, but most of the technology - especially the most advanced parts - are still developed and/or produced in the US.
There are challenges to be sure. And of course those challenges get far more exposure than the good things. "If it bleeds it leads" is the old standby in the media. Social media has further refined that and figured out that echo chambers and showing divisive and self-reinforcing content drive more engagement (and advertising revenue) than presenting any sot of balance. Look past the headlines and entertainment that poses as "news" these days and you'll find good things. Just don't expect that to overshadow the latest crisis du jour.
-
You're conflating decline and collapse. Huge difference.
Recent events are reprehensible, some of the worst aspects of America on full display for the world to see. While uncomfortable and embarrassing, this is better than letting it fester and grow underground. My main concern with Cancel Culture is that our extremists (on both the Left and the Right) get pushed into the dark web where they are easy to ignore instead of front and center where we are forced to reckon with the ugliness.
And this is all a very long way off from collapse, which may or may not happen. E.g. the UK declined w/o collapse. Furthermore, if America (or any world superpower for that matter) full on collapses, this would cause a massive power vacuum that would result in a long period of extreme tumult as nations vied for position. In other words, there would be no safe place to jump to.
Also, it's not clear to me that a modest decline in America's power is really a bad thing. The myth of American exceptionalism needs to die, we are not a special unique snowflake. Let the other nations step up their game on the world stage.
-
I feel like the USA has been stumbling backwards for a few years thanks to the far right who seem unable or unwilling to communicate with fact and truth and fairness.
I don't think the USA will ever live up to the America in the promotional materials (happy melting pot, #1 in so many topics, land of plenty, Christian ethics, etc). Our country has revealed its ugly side again and again and again.
-
If anything, American hegemony will probably expand in the 21st century. Our largest competition in the 20th century (Russia) is essentially a petro-state with a declining population and the only reason it is still a global player is nuclear weapons and an outsized military. In the 21st century China is clearly our largest competition. However, China has deep-seated problems such as the inherent rift between the rich outward-facing coast and the poor-inward facing interior. Can the Chinese Communist Party continue to balance economic growth and social stability? They also have deep structural problems in their economy related to state-run businesses and loans. No real recessions to weed out under-performing businesses. Instead, they continue to be propped out with state-backed loans even if they would be insolvent in a market-based economy. There's also decades of demographic imbalance to deal with, i.e. ~35 million more men than women with roughly 1/4 of men having no hope of ever finding a wife or partner due to their one-child policy and years of sex-selective abortions and infanticide. Meanwhile, the U.S continues to experience population growth through births and immigration.
Economically the US still enjoys massive advantages in natural resources and geography. We have the most productive agriculture in the world and lots of infrastructure to get that food to national and international markets (river networks plus road and rail). Strong mineral resources including being essentially self-sufficient in hydrocarbons, something China is nowhere near on. The US is the #1 oil producer in the world by a large margin, approximately 20 million barrels per day which balances out our consumption that is about the same. Meanwhile, China produces about 5 million barrels per day but consumes 13, and has to import the rest. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=709&t=6
The US Dollar is the world reserve currency which brings a whole host of benefits. We're still considered the place to investment money - especially when Japan and much of Europe have negative interest rates.
We have the strongest military which helps guarantee free trade around the world.
We have a dominant culture in terms of language, entertainment, etc. How many people learn English as a second language vs. Chinese or Spanish or Arabic? (almost a billion speak English as a second language)
US Technology and higher education drive a significant part of global innovation. China may make a lot of stuff, but most of the technology - especially the most advanced parts - are still developed and/or produced in the US.
There are challenges to be sure. And of course those challenges get far more exposure than the good things. "If it bleeds it leads" is the old standby in the media. Social media has further refined that and figured out that echo chambers and showing divisive and self-reinforcing content drive more engagement (and advertising revenue) than presenting any sot of balance. Look past the headlines and entertainment that poses as "news" these days and you'll find good things. Just don't expect that to overshadow the latest crisis du jour.
I don't specifically disagree with any of your points. when I say it's coming to an end, I mean over the next few decades, and I don't mean anything is going to specifically replace it as the geopolitical superpower. But times are changing. most of the points you bring up is something that were more important 10 years ago than it will be 10 years from now. Oil, Navy, even agriculture to some degree. 25 years ago, the US would have fought a (non-nuclear) war against the combined forces of every country on earth and probably won. That's not even close to true anymore.
-
I think our Empire, in terms of our 'policemen of the world' neoconservative era, will soon be ending.
I am borrowing this categorization from James Lindsay, but I would agree with him the US neoconservative era was Ronald Reagan through Bush/Obama.
He contends Trump has ushered in the postmodern era of the US, a narrative driven era in which many of the influential right begin to embrace alternative "facts" as the influential left begin to embrace critical race theory over the enlightenment values of reason, epistemology and the scientific method. The idea is that knowledge is best obtained from the 'authentic' voices of marginalized groups sharing their lived experiences, as opposed to using Eurocentric enlightenment era epistemology which is fully corrupted by the systemic racism that is inevitable when white men create a system.
I believe the right began gravitating in this postmodern direction during the Obama years, with over 2/3 of Trump supporters in 2015 fully buying into wild shit like theories of how he is secretly a Muslim or was born in Kenya.
I think the left took a grand step in the postmodern direction this past summer, as critical race theory was released from academia into the everyday world on a grand scale.
The Biden/Harris admin is a bad combination of the walking corpse of neoconservatism and an embrace of critical race theory.
My hope is that 2024 ushers in someone like Andrew Yang. He would be able to partner with representatives like the squad on economic issues while avoiding the woke rhetoric that triggers such a negative reaction from those on the right. I think Joe Biden's personality is that of a uniter, but both he and Harris lack conviction and new ideas when it comes to charting a new path forward - and they will likely end up trying to please their corporate partners economically and trying to pleasing their woke constituents culturally.
Far better than the insane top-down pollution of our information ecosystem we've been dealing for the past four years, so there's that. Maybe a gentle and uneventful Biden presidency is a good hangover remedy to bide us time to get our shit together and chart a real course forward. Here's to hope and unity. I wish our elected officials success.
-
As always, I wonder where “abroad” people think they will move? Will Canada take all of us?
-
Sounds like a good time to YOLO! And don't forget to HODL!
-
My main concern with Cancel Culture is that our extremists (on both the Left and the Right) get pushed into the dark web where they are easy to ignore instead of front and center where we are forced to reckon with the ugliness.
This is demonstrably not what happens. When a group is "deplatformed", whether that be misogynists or conspiracy theorists or white supremacists or whatever else in this iteration, a small fraction (about 20-30%) of original participants of the group do go find somewhere else to fester sure. Haters are gonna hate, literally. But most of them don't bother, and the hate speech coming from those same users who stick around drops by 80-90%. And more importantly they stop poisoning the minds and discourse of everyone else. It results in a massive improvement in the overall discourse with average people.
Here is one case study (http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf) to back that up, but I'm sure there are others. Taking away the megaphone from people who are crazy or hateful or conspiracy theorists, besides being the right thing to do morally IMO, is also very effective in reducing the number of crazy / hateful / conspiracy theorist people there are. It does drastically improve the problem, not just hide it.
And it's not "Cancel Culture" to boot users / communities who are violating your Terms Of Service. That's just called "doing what you said you'd do if they violated your Terms Of Service".
-
It is clear the American Empire is ending, it has been said that an Empires end is filled with just bad news everyday so much that it will be common place and won't shock you. (I think we reached that point)
We are now a joke to the world, we can't even provide healthcare to our citizens but we have millions of missles and 11 air craft carriers. This is a sign of an empire that is over stretched and dying
Do you see yourself moving abroad once FIRED to escape the collapse ?
I disagree with your assertion that "the American Empire is ending." A "collapse" of America is not in the offing.
I think you are unduly pessimistic because during this period of heightened political unrest America's governmental architecture of separation of powers, checks and balances, and dispersion of power, in combination with all of her long-standing institutions of ordered liberty, preordain only one outcome: America will not falter.
Only for a change of scenery, I've though a bit about moving to Australia or a European nation that has a warm climate. I doubt I'll ever do so.
I like living in America, a land of constitutional guarantees that comprise the road map which leads to the destination of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness," America's promise set forth in the Declaration of Independence.
WRT FIRE itself, I think America's tax policies, tax rates, and her panoply of liberties facilitate the accumulation of wealth that leads to FIRE for those who choose it.
I am not familiar with foreign nations' tax policies and tax rates but I suspect most aren't as conducive to FIRE and FIREees' finances as America's.
If ever I did move abroad I'd carefully research the tax policy and rates of the nation I'd be moving to so I could determine their effect on my finances and FIREee lifestyle.
-
The OP is either a Troll or must have very low IQ/EQ to join a forum and create all of these clickbait threads.
-
There would need to be significant instability for me to leave the US.
I don't fear for my life by venturing outside. There's a lot of job opportunities. I'm well paid here and my family and friends are here.
It's getting worse though everyday at this rate I give it 5 years
Sounds like you need a dose of optimism (https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/10/03/the-practical-benefits-of-outrageous-optimism/) :)
Empires may eventually end, but the cities/countries/etc usually continue to exist in one form or another afterwards. The US will continue to be a powerful, influential country for a long time to come, even if there is increased internal turmoil (although if a civil war breaks out, all bets are off).
Rome still exists, long after the Roman Empire itself ceased to exist.
Though Rome lost about 90% of its population over about 100 years...
Bad example then.
Still, I'm optimistic that the US will survive, continue to innovate and continue to attract some of the world's smartest people.
The British empire is a better example. The UK is a perfectly great place for its citizens to carry on living and thriving, but on the political stage, the UK is greatly less influential than it used to be. I am more concerned with the shifting of the US’s place in the global stage, and who/what ideology is going to replace it? More and more it is looking to be the dawning of the age of China, I am not sure that is good for anyone living in the western world.
-
More and more it is looking to be the dawning of the age of China, I am not sure that is good for anyone living in the western world.
China's evil, totalitarian, Communist regime is inimical to human liberty.
-
I'll accept your point about the US being more like EU than a single country. However there is a much greater cohesion between US States than EU countries. So the analogy only goes so far, as all analogies are apt to do.
1) I'll plead ignorance with regards to the electorial college's historical significance. But then it might be worth considering a different system so that there is no "Winner takes it all" situation. You could divide electoral college votes in percentage of votes received. A system that more fairly represents the people seems to be much needed.
2) Agree completely. I hope it's possible to change things.
I just hope we see more democratic representation in my lifetime. I've always been a fan of the USA, and I have travelled extensively all over the country, and I have met so many insanely nice people that welcomed us with open arms. I would hate to see that collapse and people get hurt.
I agree that the analogy is only surface level, but it serves to remind people sometimes that there is another level of difficulty with how the US is set up. I don't need a passport if I travel around the country, but I do need to file separate taxes for each stat that I make money in. My currency works everywhere, but so does the Euro. If I'm buying parts for my car, some of them are legal in Arizona but not in California. And so on.
The history of the electoral college and how it played a part in forming the United States is quite interesting. I don't have the ability to summarize it well in a forum format, but quite literally the US would not exist without it (it was a prime mover in getting the smaller colonies on board with joining the larger ones). Overall, I still think it is a great concept, it just needs to be adjusted to fit modern population dynamics. When it was made, the disparity between rural and city voting weight was relatively minor.
But there is merit to the idea of not letting a select few population dense cities control the narrative for all of the "flyover states". They would have no incentive to participate in the democratic process.
There are other issues, such as having certain states vote first in the presidential election each round (it's absurd that Iowa gets first say each year). Gerrymandering, like I said, has a more significant effect as well.
But I think lay people put too much weight on the idea that a popular vote would solve the issues with the US.
Remember we have some 20 odd states individually that have a larger population than the country of Denmark.
-
The bottom line is that you need to interpret the US more like the EU and less like Denmark. It is too big to manage in a democratic way like you would a single EU country. Now, if we were authoritarian, it would be a different story!
No, that's not true. The US is larger than any single EU country, but it's not even four times the population of Germany. Germany has the same population as the US had before Oklahoma joined the US in 1907 when the US had already 45 states and the same constitution that is in place today. If you can manage a country like Germany in a democratic way, you certainly can manage a country with 45 state and a population of the same size and if you can manage 45 states, you can manage 50 states. Compared to the population, Germany even has more states than the US: The US would need to have 63 states (we have 16 and 26% the population). Structurally, Germany is quite similar to the US, because our federation was modeled after the US after World War II.
-
It's getting worse though everyday at this rate I give it 5 years
You seriously think Joe Biden will single-handedly destroy America almost entirely in his first term alone? I don't think that is realistic. Pessimism sells and bad news increases social media engagement. This means news is engineered to make you angry and hopeless for two purposes: to increase social media engagement and thus raise the amount of money Google, Facebook, and Twitter make from selling online ads (the only way those companies really make money) but also cause you to self-soothe and spend your way to happiness. This is a win-win for the aforementioned companies. You increase their ad rates and money while also buying the products you see advertised, thus giving more money to those companies to spend on ads.
The thing is that the public is starting to catch on to all of this. I for one deleted all my social media accounts several years ago and I certainly wasn't even the first among my friends and family to do so. Discussion forums are really a lot better because you can't pick and choose what you want to see the way social media is engineered to only show you what you want to see. Social media just increases division. If anything, discussion forums promote community and cooperation because if somebody wants to actually make good use of a forum, they need to learn, listen, and understand opposing viewpoints and provide factual reasons why to have a differing viewpoint. You can't just hit "block" and never see that person or topic ever again the way you can on social media.
No, I think this is a turning point and things get better from here. It doesn't even matter if the US is a cultural superpower anymore and if the US & EU both become economic slaves to China. Neither the US or EU is ever going to bow to China's culture, even if we accept their lordship for all manufactured goods. Between having free speech or having the strongest economy, I'm certain we'll choose free speech and weak economies rather than letting China take over all culture and communication in every nation of the world. Just as the UKs empire ended in the 20th century and the USAs ends in the 21st, so too will China's empire end soon as well. As for when and how, who knows, but free speech has historically always won, all throughout human history. Thus China is on the wrong side of history for this battle.
-
The history of the electoral college and how it played a part in forming the United States is quite interesting. I don't have the ability to summarize it well in a forum format, but quite literally the US would not exist without it (it was a prime mover in getting the smaller colonies on board with joining the larger ones). Overall, I still think it is a great concept, it just needs to be adjusted to fit modern population dynamics. When it was made, the disparity between rural and city voting weight was relatively minor.
We know the reason the Electoral College exists because the writers of the Constitution explained their reasoning in the Federalist Papers, and this is not correct. "To give small states a voice and prevent them from being overwhelmed by the larger states" is the reason the Senate has two senators per state regardless of size.
The Electoral College exists because the founders mistrusted the average lowly uneducated commoner with the weighty task of choosing a president. Also in 1787 there was simply no feasible way to run an election / campaign across ALL 13 STATES!!!!!1! But they didn't just want politicians to be able to pick one either.
So instead they introduced a middleman (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp): people directly elect educated elites from their district who they know and trust to be capable of representing their interests and are actually capable of making educated decisions, and those Electors spend several days riding their horses over to New York City (later Philadelphia) to meet the candidates and eventually vote on which one they wanted.
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
A role which has been made entirely moot by technological advancement and all the states deciding to move to a system where people vote for which president they want and then the state selects Electors who will vote for that president. The Electoral College is a vestige of history, and serves no purpose today except to occasionally accidentally deny the will of the people.
-
More and more it is looking to be the dawning of the age of China, I am not sure that is good for anyone living in the western world.
China's evil, totalitarian, Communist regime is inimical to human liberty.
America is going to the dogs. I can't stand the racist Trump populist culture that has been pushed within America. China is even worse. At least enough people woke up and voted out the crazy. That option doesn't exist in China.
-
Now let's see - What caused some of the other countries to go down hill?
Here's what Wikipedia said about Argentina, a country that was very rich in past times.
Beginning in the 1930s, however, the Argentine economy deteriorated notably.[3] The single most important factor in this decline has been political instability since 1930, when a military junta took power, ending seven decades of civilian constitutional government.[5] In macroeconomic terms, Argentina was one of the most stable and conservative countries until the Great Depression, after which it turned into one of the most unstable.[6] Despite this, up until 1962 the Argentine per capita GDP was higher than that of Austria, Italy, Japan and of its former colonial master, Spain.[7] Successive governments from the 1930s to the 1970s pursued a strategy of import substitution to achieve industrial self-sufficiency, but the government's encouragement of industrial growth diverted investment from agricultural production, which fell dramatically
Military Junta - Looks like something to watch out for. I guess if people do something like storm the capital, then we gotta watch out.
I'm thinking the US can get into bad trouble if you follow the wrong money path. US used to be a net exporter and not so much of an importer. Now it's flipped. I can't see doing that forever. The money is going out. Looks like they really bumped up the money supply last year too. Not to good to print more than you have or you end up like the Weimar Republic and we may have the equivalent of Zimbabwe's trillion dollar bill.
Some countries that never seem to have their act together are run by crooks, men with no honor. They say what they need to to be elected and then proceed to do very well for themselves. I guess not too much really changes for the voters. This actually sounds kind of familiar. Both parties really, but I'm thinking more Republican right now after the Georgia Senate runoff.
One of the things that has really helped America along is that education has been provided. People don't seem to think public education is so important any more. They make it really hard for people to go to school beyond high school. Education is an investment in the country's future. It's one where you need to keep investing or the results will no longer be there. People can't do productive stuff if they don't know how and have no opportunity to find out how.
Let's look at successful countries. Everybody seems to be working at some sort of productive activity. They don't waste their most important resource, their people. Here in the US there seems to be a different idea about this. However, they are happy to have you take your stuff and live in a car.
Seems like if the people were more healthy, they would be more productive too. Isn't the health care thing just common sense for good business? If it was really available to people, I'll bet we would have all sorts of productivity gains.
I don't really like the idea of living in an empire. Empires are all wound up about military stuff. They are more like Sparta than Athens. I think we should be encouraging innovation and production rather than the military thing. If these swords are beat into plowshares, we can raise food to sell. The brain power dedicated to making weapons of mass destruction can be devoted to making stuff that the people of the whole world can use. For example making safe small nuclear power plants to solve global warming. I think Russia and China would probably welcome it if we had some good stuff to sell that they could use.
Maybe if the empire ended and we really got into being a trading republic instead, we would be better off.
-
1. Abolish the electorial college and replace it with a popular vote.
2. End the two-party system. Typically the democracies with more than two political parties do better and represent their citizens better. My own country (Denmark) has around 10 political parties going from the far left to the far right. So everybody can find a political that suits their tastes and cooperation between parties is 100% required to pass any laws.
I agree with the problems, but I disagree with your solutions.
1) There is good reason to keep the electoral college. It is necessary to keep 50 states united and represented. There is a lot of history on why it was created and what it meant for the union. What needs to be fixed is the balance of electoral votes (more in line with how it was originally founded). And more importantly, fix the gerrymandering of the districts. Both of these would be relatively easy. Popular vote would release a whole new can of worms.
2) Two party system is a mathematical end result of "first past the post" voting. We will not end the two party system until you stop the FPTP voting structure. I would support something like ranked choice voting instead.
The bottom line is that you need to interpret the US more like the EU and less like Denmark. It is too big to manage in a democratic way like you would a single EU country. Now, if we were authoritarian, it would be a different story!
The bolded above is incorrect. Canada also has a FPTP system at both the provincial and federal levels but still easily manages to support multiple parties. There are 5 major federal parties and each province has 2-4 parties.
As for the original question, of course the US is not ending. It's still a rich, powerful country with a large population. However, I'd argue that on the international level the US has lost some credibility as a global leader.
-
Do you see yourself moving abroad once FIRED to escape the collapse ?
Yup, my short list of possible locations includes:
- Portugal
- Scotland (I already have the right passport)
- Albania
- Chile
- Uruguay
- Colombia
- Nicaragua
- Mexico
- Ukraine
- Paraguay
-
The history of the electoral college and how it played a part in forming the United States is quite interesting. I don't have the ability to summarize it well in a forum format, but quite literally the US would not exist without it (it was a prime mover in getting the smaller colonies on board with joining the larger ones). Overall, I still think it is a great concept, it just needs to be adjusted to fit modern population dynamics. When it was made, the disparity between rural and city voting weight was relatively minor.
We know the reason the Electoral College exists because the writers of the Constitution explained their reasoning in the Federalist Papers, and this is not correct. "To give small states a voice and prevent them from being overwhelmed by the larger states" is the reason the Senate has two senators per state regardless of size.
The Electoral College exists because the founders mistrusted the average lowly uneducated commoner with the weighty task of choosing a president. Also in 1787 there was simply no feasible way to run an election / campaign across ALL 13 STATES!!!!!1! But they didn't just want politicians to be able to pick one either.
So instead they introduced a middleman (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp): people directly elect educated elites from their district who they know and trust to be capable of representing their interests and are actually capable of making educated decisions, and those Electors spend several days riding their horses over to New York City (later Philadelphia) to meet the candidates and eventually vote on which one they wanted.
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
A role which has been made entirely moot by technological advancement and all the states deciding to move to a system where people vote for which president they want and then the state selects Electors who will vote for that president. The Electoral College is a vestige of history, and serves no purpose today except to occasionally accidentally deny the will of the people.
And as a side note, I want to give an example of why you cannot compare Germany to the US:
(https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/IswSRl25Czs8wVwvU-L1_UZANvI=/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3836276/germany.0.png)
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.7Ny6P5dvmC2hP_AIn4UcvwHaD9%26pid%3DApi&f=1)
Furthermore, Germany has been dealing with their own brand of idealistic nationalism (same with the UK) and aren't exactly trending toward moderation.
I didn't intend to say that the US is exactly like the EU, or even close to it. And I certainly think we should strive for what EU countries offer in the form of social services. I'm not trying to defend it, I'm only trying to be realistic about what can and should be done, as well as be cautious about throwing away the baby with the bathwater. I think most of the problems we are facing currently have to do with social media.
-
And as a side note, I want to give an example of why you cannot compare Germany to the US:
I think you replied to the wrong person? I never said the US wasn't like the EU, I was just correcting your incorrect assertion that the point of the Electoral College was to give small states a voice. That was never the intent, Congress is intended to balance the will of the people (House) with the will of the States (Senate). The Electoral College exists for two reasons:
1) Because in 1787 most people were almost completely uneducated (as we would define it) and the founders didn't trust them to do a good job directly choose a president. They thought that that ability should be restricted to educated elites who would do a better job than the common rabble.
2) Because waging a country-wide campaign across all 13 states was a completely impractical in 1787. There simply was not enough time for the candidates to ride their horses all around and tell people what they stood for and kiss babies and whatever, and even if they tried there would be no way to know that they weren't telling the people in Virginia X and the people in North Carolina the opposite. A national campaign at the time would have been entirely reliant on the editorializing of your local newspaper, which does not lead to people making an educated decision.
The electoral college has no modern point and is an accident of history. Any attempt to frame it as "protecting the small states" is a back-rationalization to explain why it should keep on denying the will of the people in your team's favor (not saying you're doing this, but maybe the people who've told you that are). There's no guarantee at all that it will over-weight the opinion of the less-populous states, it just happens to at this point in history. If Texas flips to leaning Democratic for example then it would suddenly start over-weighting the opinion of the large states.
-
As always, I wonder where “abroad” people think they will move? Will Canada take all of us?
Exactly.
-
The electoral college has no modern point and is an accident of history. Any attempt to frame it as "protecting the small states" is a back-rationalization to explain why it should keep on denying the will of the people in your team's favor (not saying you're doing this, but maybe the people who've told you that are). There's no guarantee at all that it will over-weight the opinion of the less-populous states, it just happens to at this point in history. If Texas flips to leaning Democratic for example then it would suddenly start over-weighting the opinion of the large states.
Since Texas has been voting roughly 1.3% on average more democratic every 4 years for the past couple decades, it stands to reason that we're roughly 3 contests away from a Texas flip if demographic trends continue.
Naturally parties can evolve and dynamic candidates can make different appeals but overall I think we'll see the republicans start to warm up to the idea of getting rid of the electoral college - that or they'll just focus campaigns intensely on suburban TX.
As rural areas stagnate economically and fall behind, we'll also see intensifying competition for the suburban vote, which I don't think will necessarily be a bad thing as suburban voters tend to be fairly reasonable. I think we'll look back on the electoral college as having provided the rural American right a far longer window of opportunity to wield influence than otherwise, but a window that closed nonetheless.
-
As always, I wonder where “abroad” people think they will move? Will Canada take all of us?
Exactly.
Americans I know who have moved to Canada have said it was a long and rigourous process. It is a points system. Good luck.
-
As always, I wonder where “abroad” people think they will move? Will Canada take all of us?
Exactly.
Portugal, Albania, Colombia, Nicaragua, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, and half of the Caribbean will all happily take FIRE folks with appropriate investments. Those are just off the top my head, I'm sure that there are more.
-
I think you replied to the wrong person?
Indeed I did.
Regardless, I'm not sold that the electoral college is an accident of history and therefore should be tossed. Or, rather, I'm not sold that it wasn't functional beyond technological limitations.
The only way the larger colonies could get the smaller ones on board was to give them representation on the courts. The USA quite literally wouldn't exist without this concession. I, for one, do not want New York City and LA and handful of cities to elect the most powerful position of the Executive branch. One of the foundations of modern government is to not let the powerful overrun the weak.
One way around this would be to significantly reduce the size of the national government. Another way is to re-structure the electoral college to have similar proportions of the 13 colonies (this would bring it closer to a popular vote).
It's not a hill I would die on; I could be wrong about this. But I am hesitant to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
-
Regardless, I'm not sold that the electoral college is an accident of history and therefore should be tossed. Or, rather, I'm not sold that it wasn't functional beyond technological limitations.
If you want to provide evidence that the EC was a concession to get small states on board, then, you know, feel free to do it. Without that I'd say the Federalist 68 speaks for itself.
-
As always, I wonder where “abroad” people think they will move? Will Canada take all of us?
Exactly.
Portugal, Albania, Colombia, Nicaragua, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, and half of the Caribbean will all happily take FIRE folks with appropriate investments. Those are just off the top my head, I'm sure that there are more.
Of course, FIRE is key. Even Canada had/has a program to let you in if you bring enough financial resources with you.
But is the OP FIRED? I didn’t check. People tossing out the idea of going abroad to live is just not realistic.
-
But is the OP FIRED? I didn’t check. People tossing out the idea of going abroad to live is just not realistic.
I suppose that depends what line of work you are in. Portugal, Paraguay, Mexico, and Albania will happily let you come in pre-FIRE. For a small investment add Panama, Nicaragua, and maybe (depending on your definition of small) Colombia to that list. Panama is actually very attractive legal and tax wise depending on your line of work.
EDITed to add - and that doesn't even cover the EU Blue Card (https://www.apply.eu/) which some of us qualify for.
-
As always, I wonder where “abroad” people think they will move? Will Canada take all of us?
Exactly.
Portugal, Albania, Colombia, Nicaragua, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, and half of the Caribbean will all happily take FIRE folks with appropriate investments. Those are just off the top my head, I'm sure that there are more.
Of course, FIRE is key. Even Canada had/has a program to let you in if you bring enough financial resources with you.
But is the OP FIRED? I didn’t check. People tossing out the idea of going abroad to live is just not realistic.
Yes, this is what I meant when I said exactly. It was to agree with your point.
-
Nicaragua
Apologies if you were simply suggesting a few places that accept US expats, but a person would have to be suffering from mental illness to arrive at the conclusion that Nicaragua would offer superior stability, protection of rights/assets, or safety/security when compared to the US.
I spent a decent amount of time in Nicaragua during those underemployed years following the great recession, thinking of spending an early retirement there later down the road. However the unrest that began in 2018 was enough to convince to forget about any more visits, much less expatriating myself there.
-
Nicaragua
Apologies if you were simply suggesting a few places that accept US expats, but a person would have to be suffering from mental illness to arrive at the conclusion that Nicaragua would offer superior stability, protection of rights/assets, or safety/security when compared to the US.
I spent a decent amount of time in Nicaragua during those underemployed years following the great recession, thinking of spending an early retirement there later down the road. However the unrest that began in 2018 was enough to convince to forget about any more visits, much less expatriating myself there.
They certainly have some problems, and I would not put all my eggs in Nicaragua. But they have a lot of economic upside, where as the US has very little economic upside AFAICT.
Along those lines there is nothing stopping you from investing in Portugal, Colombia, Nicaragua, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, and a bunch or eastern Europe all at the same time while leaving some assets in the USA.
-
Nicaragua
Apologies if you were simply suggesting a few places that accept US expats, but a person would have to be suffering from mental illness to arrive at the conclusion that Nicaragua would offer superior stability, protection of rights/assets, or safety/security when compared to the US.
I spent a decent amount of time in Nicaragua during those underemployed years following the great recession, thinking of spending an early retirement there later down the road. However the unrest that began in 2018 was enough to convince to forget about any more visits, much less expatriating myself there.
They certainly have some problems, and I would not put all my eggs in Nicaragua. But they have a lot of economic upside, where as the US has very little economic upside AFAICT.
Along those lines there is nothing stopping you from investing in Portugal, Colombia, Nicaragua, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, and a bunch or eastern Europe all at the same time while leaving some assets in the USA.
I guess I am referring mostly to the egg of your person, and the asset being the nest :)
I have heard good things about Portugal and love the climate and architecture, so that'd probably be near the top of my list.
-
I think you replied to the wrong person?
I, for one, do not want New York City and LA and handful of cities to elect the most powerful position of the Executive branch. One of the foundations of modern government is to not let the powerful overrun the weak.
This always cracks me up (about as much as it frustrates me). Nobody wants people who aren’t them to decide things on their behalf. That, I get. But do you think people in NYC and LA and a handful of other cities enjoy their votes counting for less? Are we less citizens of the US than people living in Wyoming and Nebraska? Yet every branch of government gives residents of unpopulated states significantly more representation than populated ones.
And, indeed, one purpose of government is to balance majority rule with not trampling minorities’ rights. The irony is the electoral college does exactly the opposite—it results in white voters getting more voting power than non-white voters. And as urbanization of the country continues, this problem only gets worse.
It also serves to ignore minority voters in their own states. There were more Trump voters in California than in Texas. There were more Biden voters in Texas than in New York. There were more Trump voters in New York than Ohio. We don’t think about it, because we just paint these states 100% red or 100% blue, and move on.
-
I think you replied to the wrong person?
I, for one, do not want New York City and LA and handful of cities to elect the most powerful position of the Executive branch. One of the foundations of modern government is to not let the powerful overrun the weak.
This always cracks me up (about as much as it frustrates me). Nobody wants people who aren’t them to decide things on their behalf. That, I get. But do you think people in NYC and LA and a handful of other cities enjoy their votes counting for less? Are we less citizens of the US than people living in Wyoming and Nebraska? Yet every branch of government gives residents of unpopulated states significantly more representation than populated ones.
And, indeed, one purpose of government is to balance majority rule with not trampling minorities’ rights. The irony is the electoral college does exactly the opposite—it results in white voters getting more voting power than non-white voters. And as urbanization of the country continues, this problem only gets worse.
It also serves to ignore minority voters in their own states. There were more Trump voters in California than in Texas. There were more Biden voters in Texas than in New York. There were more Trump voters in New York than Ohio. We don’t think about it, because we just paint these states 100% red or 100% blue, and move on.
You don't get it, do you?
Only Trump supporting white rural rednecks are "real" Americans. You are a "coastal elite", a pretend, fake American.
It obviously follows your vote should count for less.
What about this simple logic do you not get??
-
I think you replied to the wrong person?
I, for one, do not want New York City and LA and handful of cities to elect the most powerful position of the Executive branch. One of the foundations of modern government is to not let the powerful overrun the weak.
This always cracks me up (about as much as it frustrates me). Nobody wants people who aren’t them to decide things on their behalf. That, I get. But do you think people in NYC and LA and a handful of other cities enjoy their votes counting for less? Are we less citizens of the US than people living in Wyoming and Nebraska? Yet every branch of government gives residents of unpopulated states significantly more representation than populated ones.
And, indeed, one purpose of government is to balance majority rule with not trampling minorities’ rights. The irony is the electoral college does exactly the opposite—it results in white voters getting more voting power than non-white voters. And as urbanization of the country continues, this problem only gets worse.
It also serves to ignore minority voters in their own states. There were more Trump voters in California than in Texas. There were more Biden voters in Texas than in New York. There were more Trump voters in New York than Ohio. We don’t think about it, because we just paint these states 100% red or 100% blue, and move on.
THANK YOU for this excellent explanation of the problem with the Electoral College. Getting rid of it altogether will be long hassle (doesn't mean it shouldn't be done), but in the meantime, why aren't all states required to adhere to the same standards for this nationwide election? Maine and Nebraska assign their EC votes proportionally. All others are winner-take-all. Following the lead of those two states would move us closer to fair representation.
The presidential election in general is ridiculous. The primary is a disaster. Every other race for local, state, and federal offices has a primary in August. I do not understand the lack of standardization for the one race that is truly nationwide.
-
I have heard good things about Portugal and love the climate and architecture, so that'd probably be near the top of my list.
There is a reason that it is #1 on my list, but I'm watching developments in Albania to see if that changes.
-
The US federal election system is a remnant of an earlier time, and no one wants to take the responsibility of fixing the system.
I totally get this. We have the same problem in miniature. 24 Sussex Drive is the official PM's residence (equivalent of the White House, or 10 Downing Street), but no-one wants to spend the money to maintain it, it has become a political football. It is really public property but because the PM lives there it somehow isn't? So it need massive renovations, because neither party has been willing to fix it, and the PM is presently living in a cottage on the grounds of Rideau Hall, where the Governor General lives. I know I said it was a problem in miniature, at least Americans look after the White House.
Both are total insanity, just at different levels. And both have no easy fix.
On a more serious note, lots of countries have functioning electoral systems that make it easy for citizens to vote. The ones I can think of off the top of my head are all Parliamentary systems, but I am sure there are others. Is it American exceptionalism that prevents Americans from even thinking that they could learn from other countries on how to set up a better system?
-
This always cracks me up (about as much as it frustrates me). Nobody wants people who aren’t them to decide things on their behalf. That, I get. But do you think people in NYC and LA and a handful of other cities enjoy their votes counting for less? Are we less citizens of the US than people living in Wyoming and Nebraska? Yet every branch of government gives residents of unpopulated states significantly more representation than populated ones.
You aren't effing paying attention to my discussion. Bolded the part where I already conceded this point. I already said that the representation weight was skewed too much. And yet you throw it at me like I disagree. NOPE. I agree with this.
If you think you're frustrated, then you might have a taste for how I feel. I give up. Perhaps try re-stating my point back to me. I sincerely doubt that you can.
-
And, indeed, one purpose of government is to balance majority rule with not trampling minorities’ rights. The irony is the electoral college does exactly the opposite—it results in white voters getting more voting power than non-white voters. And as urbanization of the country continues, this problem only gets worse.
You're combining two different definitions of "minority" here.
-
And, indeed, one purpose of government is to balance majority rule with not trampling minorities’ rights. The irony is the electoral college does exactly the opposite—it results in white voters getting more voting power than non-white voters. And as urbanization of the country continues, this problem only gets worse.
You're combining two different definitions of "minority" here.
If you're gonna rant, at least get the quotes right.
-
You aren't effing paying attention to my discussion. Bolded the part where I already conceded this point. I already said that the representation weight was skewed too much. And yet you throw it at me like I disagree. NOPE. I agree with this.
If you think you're frustrated, then you might have a taste for how I feel. I give up. Perhaps try re-stating my point back to me. I sincerely doubt that you can.
That escalated quickly...
But I believe your point is: unpopulated states like Nebraska, Vermont, Wyoming, etc. have no incentive to “play ball” as part of the US unless they get a signal boost by giving their residents more per-capita representation than big states. Is that about right?
-
This always cracks me up (about as much as it frustrates me). Nobody wants people who aren’t them to decide things on their behalf. That, I get. But do you think people in NYC and LA and a handful of other cities enjoy their votes counting for less? Are we less citizens of the US than people living in Wyoming and Nebraska? Yet every branch of government gives residents of unpopulated states significantly more representation than populated ones.
You aren't effing paying attention to my discussion. Bolded the part where I already conceded this point. I already said that the representation weight was skewed too much. And yet you throw it at me like I disagree. NOPE. I agree with this.
If you think you're frustrated, then you might have a taste for how I feel. I give up. Perhaps try re-stating my point back to me. I sincerely doubt that you can.
Kindly direct this to the correct poster.
-
I do not understand the lack of standardization for the one race that is truly nationwide.
In a word, the reason is federalism.
-
Question. When your founders were setting things up, were there clear parties? Because if yes, all they did was the same as you have now, elect a bunch of people to select someone from a voted for party. Which means they got to choose whomever they thought was the best man from the party they were elected to select from, but couldn't select someone from the other parties. But they could at least pick from a group. If there were no parties then they could select anyone. Either way possibly more workable than what you have now.
Our big issue is the built in conflict between one person being at the same time both a legislator and a member of the executive branch, I.e. a cabinet minister. Early on someone named to cabinet had to resign their seat and run in a by-election, because that was not what their constituents had elected them to do. Now people are delighted to have their MP in cabinet.
Any system has its good and bad points, the trick is to promote the best aspects of the setup you have and minimise the bad points. Sigh, hard to do.
-
Questions for Pomegranate12:
Why do you think other places are better?
How much have you travelled? Every country has its advantages/disadvantages.....utopia doesn't exist.
The US had some unprecedented advantages following WWII. That was 75 yrs ago. Is it reasonable to expect the US to remain the top empire forever? No one stays at the top forever.
Is the U.S.perfect? Of course it isn't, but what country is? It seems a bit premature to claim we are completely falling apart.
-
Questions for Pomegranate12:
- SNIP -
Is the U.S.perfect? Of course it isn't, but what country is? It seems a bit premature to claim we are completely falling apart.
Right! And,....why do we need an empire? I guess the US spends as much as the next 12 countries combined on defense. Does Luxembourg have an empire? They seem to do pretty well for themselves.
-
Questions for Pomegranate12:
- SNIP -
Is the U.S.perfect? Of course it isn't, but what country is? It seems a bit premature to claim we are completely falling apart.
Right! And,....why do we need an empire? I guess the US spends as much as the next 12 countries combined on defense. Does Luxembourg have an empire? They seem to do pretty well for themselves.
This is one of those oft-repeated lines that ignores some important factors - i.e. how much of our defense spending is personnel costs (roughly half of that ~$700 billion) and how much more US Servicemembers are paid compared to say China or Russia. If you adjust for purchasing power parity the amount China is spending compared to the US becomes much closer.
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/05/us-defense-budget-not-that-much-bigger-than-china-russia-gen-milley/
-
All empires have to end and if the US crumbles it might make for some interesting financial developments which might be beneficial in a roundabout way.
-
Questions for Pomegranate12:
- SNIP -
Is the U.S.perfect? Of course it isn't, but what country is? It seems a bit premature to claim we are completely falling apart.
Right! And,....why do we need an empire? I guess the US spends as much as the next 12 countries combined on defense. Does Luxembourg have an empire? They seem to do pretty well for themselves.
This is one of those oft-repeated lines that ignores some important factors - i.e. how much of our defense spending is personnel costs (roughly half of that ~$700 billion) and how much more US Servicemembers are paid compared to say China or Russia. If you adjust for purchasing power parity the amount China is spending compared to the US becomes much closer.
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/05/us-defense-budget-not-that-much-bigger-than-china-russia-gen-milley/
What the heck? 'Adjusted for purchasing power'? That makes no sense at all to do when comparing national expenditures. Adjusted for purchasing power, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are both nicer places to live than New Zealand, France, and Belgium. What a bizarre way to look at things.
-
Questions for Pomegranate12:
Why do you think other places are better?
How much have you travelled? Every country has its advantages/disadvantages.....utopia doesn't exist.
The US had some unprecedented advantages following WWII. That was 75 yrs ago. Is it reasonable to expect the US to remain the top empire forever? No one stays at the top forever.
Is the U.S.perfect? Of course it isn't, but what country is? It seems a bit premature to claim we are completely falling apart.
OP's not going to answer, it's been moved to off-topic and they don't have 100 posts.
-
Questions for Pomegranate12:
- SNIP -
Is the U.S.perfect? Of course it isn't, but what country is? It seems a bit premature to claim we are completely falling apart.
Right! And,....why do we need an empire? I guess the US spends as much as the next 12 countries combined on defense. Does Luxembourg have an empire? They seem to do pretty well for themselves.
This is one of those oft-repeated lines that ignores some important factors - i.e. how much of our defense spending is personnel costs (roughly half of that ~$700 billion) and how much more US Servicemembers are paid compared to say China or Russia. If you adjust for purchasing power parity the amount China is spending compared to the US becomes much closer.
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/05/us-defense-budget-not-that-much-bigger-than-china-russia-gen-milley/
What the heck? 'Adjusted for purchasing power'? That makes no sense at all to do when comparing national expenditures. Adjusted for purchasing power, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are both nicer places to live than New Zealand, France, and Belgium. What a bizarre way to look at things.
https://warontherocks.com/2019/12/why-russian-military-expenditure-is-much-higher-than-commonly-understood-as-is-chinas/
the use of market exchange rates grossly understates the real volume of Russian military expenditure (and that of other countries with smaller per-capita incomes, like China). Instead, any analysis of comparative military expenditure should be based on the use of purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rates rather than market exchange rates. This alternative method takes differences in costs between countries into account. As we demonstrate, despite some shortcomings, PPP is a much more methodologically robust and defensible method of comparing defense spending across countries than the method of comparing spending using the market exchange rates that are commonly used by think tanks and academics. Using PPP, one finds that Russia’s effective military expenditure actually ranged between $150 billion and $180 billion annually over the last five years. That figure is conservative; taking into account hidden or obfuscated military expenditure, Russia may well come in at around $200 billion.
The most appropriate method for taking differences in relative costs across countries into account is, therefore, to use a PPP exchange rate. Today the International Monetary Fund calculates an implied PPP exchange rate of 23.4 rubles to the dollar. Given that the actual market exchange rate is 65 rubles to the dollar, this would suggest that the value of economic activity in Russia is over two and a half times larger than implied by the prevailing market exchange rate.
As a Captain in the Army I am paid over $100k a year - plus retirement and medical benefits that will be paid out for decades to come. A Russian Captain will be paid around $15k, plus presumably some benefits like food and housing. So call it $25k total to be generous. So if the Russian military spends $60 billion on defense but their personnel costs are on average say 1/4 of the US, don't you think that skews the numbers when people claim the US spends 10x more on defense than Russia or spends more than the next 10-12 countries combined? A typical truck used in the military might cost $300-400k. I'm guessing an equivalent Russian truck with approximately the same capabilities will cost a fraction of that because at every level of production their labor costs are lower. So it is not an apples to apples comparison, especially when there are rarely market-based prices for things like missiles, tanks, cruisers, etc. It's not like comparing the cost of a gallon of a roll of copper wire or a barrel of oil.
-
I'll just ask the question. Does the US really need all the military that it has? It seems like they've been fighting in Afghanistan forever. They talk about terrorist threats and show us pictures of some rocky places where the people eek out a living as goat herders and such. To be honest with you, I'm more concerned with the crazy MAGA guys than the goat herders.
Does the US really need to be an empire?
-
Questions for Pomegranate12:
- SNIP -
Is the U.S.perfect? Of course it isn't, but what country is? It seems a bit premature to claim we are completely falling apart.
Right! And,....why do we need an empire? I guess the US spends as much as the next 12 countries combined on defense. Does Luxembourg have an empire? They seem to do pretty well for themselves.
This is one of those oft-repeated lines that ignores some important factors - i.e. how much of our defense spending is personnel costs (roughly half of that ~$700 billion) and how much more US Servicemembers are paid compared to say China or Russia. If you adjust for purchasing power parity the amount China is spending compared to the US becomes much closer.
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/05/us-defense-budget-not-that-much-bigger-than-china-russia-gen-milley/
What the heck? 'Adjusted for purchasing power'? That makes no sense at all to do when comparing national expenditures. Adjusted for purchasing power, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are both nicer places to live than New Zealand, France, and Belgium. What a bizarre way to look at things.
https://warontherocks.com/2019/12/why-russian-military-expenditure-is-much-higher-than-commonly-understood-as-is-chinas/
the use of market exchange rates grossly understates the real volume of Russian military expenditure (and that of other countries with smaller per-capita incomes, like China). Instead, any analysis of comparative military expenditure should be based on the use of purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rates rather than market exchange rates. This alternative method takes differences in costs between countries into account. As we demonstrate, despite some shortcomings, PPP is a much more methodologically robust and defensible method of comparing defense spending across countries than the method of comparing spending using the market exchange rates that are commonly used by think tanks and academics. Using PPP, one finds that Russia’s effective military expenditure actually ranged between $150 billion and $180 billion annually over the last five years. That figure is conservative; taking into account hidden or obfuscated military expenditure, Russia may well come in at around $200 billion.
The most appropriate method for taking differences in relative costs across countries into account is, therefore, to use a PPP exchange rate. Today the International Monetary Fund calculates an implied PPP exchange rate of 23.4 rubles to the dollar. Given that the actual market exchange rate is 65 rubles to the dollar, this would suggest that the value of economic activity in Russia is over two and a half times larger than implied by the prevailing market exchange rate.
As a Captain in the Army I am paid over $100k a year - plus retirement and medical benefits that will be paid out for decades to come. A Russian Captain will be paid around $15k, plus presumably some benefits like food and housing. So call it $25k total to be generous. So if the Russian military spends $60 billion on defense but their personnel costs are on average say 1/4 of the US, don't you think that skews the numbers when people claim the US spends 10x more on defense than Russia or spends more than the next 10-12 countries combined? A typical truck used in the military might cost $300-400k. I'm guessing an equivalent Russian truck with approximately the same capabilities will cost a fraction of that because at every level of production their labor costs are lower. So it is not an apples to apples comparison, especially when there are rarely market-based prices for things like missiles, tanks, cruisers, etc. It's not like comparing the cost of a gallon of a roll of copper wire or a barrel of oil.
I understand your point . . . you're arguing that it costs more to pay US soldiers than Russian soldiers. I understand that argument. I just don't think it makes any sense.
To put it simply, calculating Russian military expenditure based on purchasing power means that the United States spends only about four times more than Russia on defense, rather than ten times more when using market exchange rates.
4x using purchasing power or 10x using real figures . . . both seem like an awful lot of money to be spending.
There are ridiculous and costly expenses with no value added that you seem to be ignoring. How much of that cash has been spent by the US government on personnel and maintenance costs to keep the illegal Guantanamo Bay torture facilities running? How much money would be saved by merely following international law?
-
I'll just ask the question. Does the US really need all the military that it has? It seems like they've been fighting in Afghanistan forever. They talk about terrorist threats and show us pictures of some rocky places where the people eek out a living as goat herders and such. To be honest with you, I'm more concerned with the crazy MAGA guys than the goat herders.
Does the US really need to be an empire?
No, we don't. In the wake of WWII this all made sense as our policing the world served us in keeping international trade routes open and safe. We were able to import what we couldn't make, sell what we could, and our dominant position increased.
Things are different now and inertia explains the vast majority of our military spending. It was once said there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program. What bureaucrats will lead the presentation about how their budget is 5x too big, and they should be let go immediately? And when an idiot reality TV host turned Republican president finally gives us a chance to reverse course, the boy who cried wolf effect keeps us from embracing any of his ideas as most of them are dumb, unethical, or both. And so we've glorified the bureaucrat so viciously slandered as a deep state actor.
It's kind of a missed opportunity. I think a D president would face too much blowback from the hawkish right (a coalition that magically seems to grow exponentially if a D is the president). Trump would've faced some neocon resistance but ultimately he could've made military footprint contraction a priority and could've set the precedent that Biden would have had to fight to reverse. It's far easier to let everything stay the same than to have to make the case for each and every military base we operate across the globe.
-
I understand your point . . . you're arguing that it costs more to pay US soldiers than Russian soldiers. I understand that argument. I just don't think it makes any sense.
To put it simply, calculating Russian military expenditure based on purchasing power means that the United States spends only about four times more than Russia on defense, rather than ten times more when using market exchange rates.
4x using purchasing power or 10x using real figures . . . both seem like an awful lot of money to be spending.
There are ridiculous and costly expenses with no value added that you seem to be ignoring. How much of that cash has been spent by the US government on personnel and maintenance costs to keep the illegal Guantanamo Bay torture facilities running? How much money would be saved by merely following international law?
Well since the DoD pays my salary I am a bit biased. However, I've seen first hand the fraud, waste, and abuse. The DoD is by no means efficient in spending that ~$700 billion. Everyone wants a piece of the pie and even for a well-meaning contractor to work with the government involves a lot of bureaucracy that drives up their costs. For the ones who are perfectly happy to screw over the government, it's far worse. I see costs for equipment or construction projects that should be criminal. Or contractors who fail at their job and still get paid, or even get bonuses. There's lots of systems in place to stop these things, but a few percent here, and a few percent there can end up being millions or billions of dollars.
The whole Guantanamo Bay mission is a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things. Tens of millions per year maybe. Those Soldiers would be paid regardless of whether they're guarding prisoners there or stationed somewhere in the US. The only difference is feeding and housing them costs a bit more while deployed. The facilities themselves were probably fairly expensive to build since they probably had to bring in all the construction material and labor from the U.S.
At the end of the day could the US get by with say half as much defense spending? Probably. It would mean a significant downsizing and cutting a lot of weapons systems. Maybe it would mean Russia decides to bite off more of Ukraine, or China takes over some more islands since they have less to fear from a US response. It's one of those things that's hard to put a price on. Lots of people inside and outside the US complain about us being the world's policeman, but what if there were no police? Would that be better for global geopolitical stability?
-
Portugal, Albania, Colombia, Nicaragua, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, and half of the Caribbean will all happily take FIRE folks with appropriate investments. Those are just off the top my head, I'm sure that there are more.
A few of those aren't exactly countries known for being safe, governmentally stable, and with non-corrupt governments. Somebody leaving a wealthy and safe part of Vermont to live in Nicaragua because they think the US is politically unstable and unsafe may not experience the outcome they were hoping for. Good luck to them though. To each their own.
-
I understand your point . . . you're arguing that it costs more to pay US soldiers than Russian soldiers. I understand that argument. I just don't think it makes any sense.
To put it simply, calculating Russian military expenditure based on purchasing power means that the United States spends only about four times more than Russia on defense, rather than ten times more when using market exchange rates.
4x using purchasing power or 10x using real figures . . . both seem like an awful lot of money to be spending.
There are ridiculous and costly expenses with no value added that you seem to be ignoring. How much of that cash has been spent by the US government on personnel and maintenance costs to keep the illegal Guantanamo Bay torture facilities running? How much money would be saved by merely following international law?
Well since the DoD pays my salary I am a bit biased. However, I've seen first hand the fraud, waste, and abuse. The DoD is by no means efficient in spending that ~$700 billion. Everyone wants a piece of the pie and even for a well-meaning contractor to work with the government involves a lot of bureaucracy that drives up their costs. For the ones who are perfectly happy to screw over the government, it's far worse. I see costs for equipment or construction projects that should be criminal. Or contractors who fail at their job and still get paid, or even get bonuses. There's lots of systems in place to stop these things, but a few percent here, and a few percent there can end up being millions or billions of dollars.
The whole Guantanamo Bay mission is a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things. Tens of millions per year maybe. Those Soldiers would be paid regardless of whether they're guarding prisoners there or stationed somewhere in the US. The only difference is feeding and housing them costs a bit more while deployed. The facilities themselves were probably fairly expensive to build since they probably had to bring in all the construction material and labor from the U.S.
At the end of the day could the US get by with say half as much defense spending? Probably. It would mean a significant downsizing and cutting a lot of weapons systems. Maybe it would mean Russia decides to bite off more of Ukraine, or China takes over some more islands since they have less to fear from a US response. It's one of those things that's hard to put a price on. Lots of people inside and outside the US complain about us being the world's policeman, but what if there were no police? Would that be better for global geopolitical stability?
The US has always used it's army to protect US interests and political goals.
So what are some recent 'police' actions?
Iraq. Got rid of Saddam Hussein (yay!) . . . but didn't have any plan for how to return the area to stability afterwards, so the US was directly responsible for the rise of ISIS (which was almost heavily run by ex-Saddam's Iraq military men). As a good police officer, the US military happily raped and tortured prisoners in it's care - with tacit approval from every level and ultimately no real accountability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse)). There were also methodical murders of civilians by US marines when faced by total lack of resistance - followed by no accountability by the military (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_massacre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_massacre)). There was the widespread use of internationally illegal chemical weapons by US forces on civilian populations for which nobody has ever been held accountable (https://www.newsweek.com/why-united-nations-not-investigating-alleged-white-phosphorus-attacks-1468042 (https://www.newsweek.com/why-united-nations-not-investigating-alleged-white-phosphorus-attacks-1468042)). Bombing of civilians and then attmepts to cover up the atrocity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukaradeeb_wedding_party_massacre). Then there was the massacre by US paid mercenaries - for which no ultimate penalty was ever paid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisour_Square_massacre#Criminal_charges (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisour_Square_massacre#Criminal_charges)).
Afghanistan. Let's see . . . we've got illegal use of internationally banned chemical weapons against civilians (https://www.reuters.com/article/southAsiaNews/idINIndia-39498520090508?edition-redirect=in (https://www.reuters.com/article/southAsiaNews/idINIndia-39498520090508?edition-redirect=in)), US support of child rapists and punishment of military personnel who voice concern (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html)), more kidnapping torture and rape by US military (https://www.hrw.org/report/2004/03/07/enduring-freedom/abuses-us-forces-afghanistan (https://www.hrw.org/report/2004/03/07/enduring-freedom/abuses-us-forces-afghanistan)).
Lists and lists of this stuff can be made going all the way back to WWII. The US military is at best a corrupt and evil police officer - one who takes bribes for his family, abuses his power, takes prisoners without trial or even cause, often rapes and murders those prisoners, and answers to no-one.
As far as actual police actions? The fully and ridiculously funded US military didn't do a damned thing when Russia blatantly invaded and annexed the Ukraine. China is happily building advance military bases all over the place while thumbing their nose while the US military looks on and does nothing. Historically, it seems that US military response is only really taken when it comes to poorer countries unable to fight back - not big threats. What worse outcome are you expecting with slightly less military funding?
Please understand that I'm not attacking you personally Michael . . . but the organization you work for condones and rewards crimes against humanity, going out of it's way to protect monsters. It's hard to get on board with that.
-
Question. When your founders were setting things up, were there clear parties?
Not really. The founders actually hated the idea of political parties, and wrote the Constitution under the assumption that everyone in government from the president to the Congress to the electoral college would be a free agent thinking for himself outside of organized "factions." They even wrote it so the guy who came in second place in the electoral vote would be vice president. This assumption of no political parties was rather naïve, disproven a few years into the republic when the first set of parties cropped up. They did change the vice president thing after a few times the vice president and president from opposing parties absolutely despised each other, but other reforms to better account for the existence of parties in the electoral system (such as proportional representation in the House) have not been implemented.
-
At the end of the day could the US get by with say half as much defense spending? Probably. It would mean a significant downsizing and cutting a lot of weapons systems. Maybe it would mean Russia decides to bite off more of Ukraine, or China takes over some more islands since they have less to fear from a US response. It's one of those things that's hard to put a price on. Lots of people inside and outside the US complain about us being the world's policeman, but what if there were no police? Would that be better for global geopolitical stability?
I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the deafening sound of us completely ignoring our obligation to defend Ukraine and letting Russia carve it up. WTF is the point of having the world's largest military if we don't use it?
-
At the end of the day could the US get by with say half as much defense spending? Probably. It would mean a significant downsizing and cutting a lot of weapons systems. Maybe it would mean Russia decides to bite off more of Ukraine, or China takes over some more islands since they have less to fear from a US response. It's one of those things that's hard to put a price on. Lots of people inside and outside the US complain about us being the world's policeman, but what if there were no police? Would that be better for global geopolitical stability?
I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the deafening sound of us completely ignoring our obligation to defend Ukraine and letting Russia carve it up. WTF is the point of having the world's largest military if we don't use it?
Folks always use the excuse that it is a deterrent. Military force is only to be used as a final resort.
-
Question. When your founders were setting things up, were there clear parties?
Not really. The founders actually hated the idea of political parties, and wrote the Constitution under the assumption that everyone in government from the president to the Congress to the electoral college would be a free agent thinking for himself outside of organized "factions." They even wrote it so the guy who came in second place in the electoral vote would be vice president. This assumption of no political parties was rather naïve, disproven a few years into the republic when the first set of parties cropped up. They did change the vice president thing after a few times the vice president and president from opposing parties absolutely despised each other, but other reforms to better account for the existence of parties in the electoral system (such as proportional representation in the House) have not been implemented.
That explains a lot. They were being a bit idealistic, since there were lots of examples of factions and political parties in their time. We had political parties from the get-go, our whole system assumes political parties. The only place we didn't was in municipal politics, and now there are some parties, or maybe coalitions might be a better word, in municipal politics.
-
The military is also a giant government employment program. It provides opportunities for people (usually low income/education people) to enter a stable government job, build some skills, be employed, etc. Once they leave the military they have other opportunities available to them. If you cut military spending those kinds of opportunities need to be created elsewhere. It's not just about policing the world. It's a jobs program that provides a path for low income/education people to move out of poverty. Whether it's the most efficient, or a good way to do that is debatable, but it's not like the government can just cut military spending and not replace it with another direct jobs program.
-
The military is also a giant government employment program. It provides opportunities for people (usually low income/education people) to enter a stable government job, build some skills, be employed, etc. Once they leave the military they have other opportunities available to them. If you cut military spending those kinds of opportunities need to be created elsewhere. It's not just about policing the world.
That is a great point. It was my husband's leg up out of poverty and a family/social culture that didn't value education/often didn't even finish high school, remains stuck in poverty and addiction cycles. He assumed growing up he'd be a blue collar labor or service worker, or a cop. And he was, for a few years, but after the army he wanted to go to college, and ended up with a very successful career in the sciences. It's highly unlikely he would ever have begun to aspire to anything that required a college degree, let alone 3 degrees and a post doc, without the army to boost him out of his socio-cultural circle.
-
It's getting worse though everyday at this rate I give it 5 years
You seriously think Joe Biden will single-handedly destroy America almost entirely in his first term alone? I don't think that is realistic. Pessimism sells and bad news increases social media engagement. This means news is engineered to make you angry and hopeless for two purposes: to increase social media engagement and thus raise the amount of money Google, Facebook, and Twitter make from selling online ads (the only way those companies really make money) but also cause you to self-soothe and spend your way to happiness. This is a win-win for the aforementioned companies. You increase their ad rates and money while also buying the products you see advertised, thus giving more money to those companies to spend on ads.
The thing is that the public is starting to catch on to all of this. I for one deleted all my social media accounts several years ago and I certainly wasn't even the first among my friends and family to do so. Discussion forums are really a lot better because you can't pick and choose what you want to see the way social media is engineered to only show you what you want to see. Social media just increases division. If anything, discussion forums promote community and cooperation because if somebody wants to actually make good use of a forum, they need to learn, listen, and understand opposing viewpoints and provide factual reasons why to have a differing viewpoint. You can't just hit "block" and never see that person or topic ever again the way you can on social media.
No, I think this is a turning point and things get better from here. It doesn't even matter if the US is a cultural superpower anymore and if the US & EU both become economic slaves to China. Neither the US or EU is ever going to bow to China's culture, even if we accept their lordship for all manufactured goods. Between having free speech or having the strongest economy, I'm certain we'll choose free speech and weak economies rather than letting China take over all culture and communication in every nation of the world. Just as the UKs empire ended in the 20th century and the USAs ends in the 21st, so too will China's empire end soon as well. As for when and how, who knows, but free speech has historically always won, all throughout human history. Thus China is on the wrong side of history for this battle.
There's a ton of optimism and can-do attitude still left in the USA despite what @Pomegranate12 may be getting on left/right-wing news media.
It is the darkest before dawn.
-
The military is also a giant government employment program. It provides opportunities for people (usually low income/education people) to enter a stable government job, build some skills, be employed, etc. Once they leave the military they have other opportunities available to them. If you cut military spending those kinds of opportunities need to be created elsewhere. It's not just about policing the world.
That is a great point. It was my husband's leg up out of poverty and a family/social culture that didn't value education/often didn't even finish high school, remains stuck in poverty and addiction cycles. He assumed growing up he'd be a blue collar labor or service worker, or a cop. And he was, for a few years, but after the army he wanted to go to college, and ended up with a very successful career in the sciences. It's highly unlikely he would ever have begun to aspire to anything that required a college degree, let alone 3 degrees and a post doc, without the army to boost him out of his socio-cultural circle.
But why spend that money on the military when we could spend it on infrastructure?
-
The military is also a giant government employment program. It provides opportunities for people (usually low income/education people) to enter a stable government job, build some skills, be employed, etc. Once they leave the military they have other opportunities available to them. If you cut military spending those kinds of opportunities need to be created elsewhere. It's not just about policing the world.
That is a great point. It was my husband's leg up out of poverty and a family/social culture that didn't value education/often didn't even finish high school, remains stuck in poverty and addiction cycles. He assumed growing up he'd be a blue collar labor or service worker, or a cop. And he was, for a few years, but after the army he wanted to go to college, and ended up with a very successful career in the sciences. It's highly unlikely he would ever have begun to aspire to anything that required a college degree, let alone 3 degrees and a post doc, without the army to boost him out of his socio-cultural circle.
But why spend that money on the military when we could spend it on infrastructure?
I'm not sure how the money should be most effectively apportioned for long term success and support for our population. However, I'm pretty certain that more infrastructure spending in my husband's home state would not have done anything to put my husband on a path out of poverty to the upper middle class and professional fulfillment and accolades. I can kind of squint and see how it might have improved his life slightly had he NOT gone into the military and remained lower/middle income, blue collar, so I'm open to hypothetical projections. It's just that I doubt he would have had nearly as good a life overall, had the military not provided an 'escape route'.
-
I'm not sure how the money should be most effectively apportioned for long term success and support for our population. However, I'm pretty certain that more infrastructure spending in my husband's home state would not have done anything to put my husband on a path out of poverty to the upper middle class and professional fulfillment and accolades. I can kind of squint and see how it might have improved his life slightly had he NOT gone into the military and remained lower/middle income, blue collar, so I'm open to hypothetical projections. It's just that I doubt he would have had nearly as good a life overall, had the military not provided an 'escape route'.
I assume that you are in reference to the GI Bill, of which I'm a huge fan. But we could re-open the CCC (https://www.history.com/topics/great-depression/civilian-conservation-corps) and give everyone who joins it "GI" benefits.
-
I'm not sure how the money should be most effectively apportioned for long term success and support for our population. However, I'm pretty certain that more infrastructure spending in my husband's home state would not have done anything to put my husband on a path out of poverty to the upper middle class and professional fulfillment and accolades. I can kind of squint and see how it might have improved his life slightly had he NOT gone into the military and remained lower/middle income, blue collar, so I'm open to hypothetical projections. It's just that I doubt he would have had nearly as good a life overall, had the military not provided an 'escape route'.
I assume that you are in reference to the GI Bill, of which I'm a huge fan. But we could re-open the CCC (https://www.history.com/topics/great-depression/civilian-conservation-corps) and give everyone who joins it "GI" benefits.
Not sure why you would assume that. My husband's experience was long after the GI Bill...there was nothing like that involved. But I agree that we should set up some sort of civil service option with educational support as part of the benefits.
-
The US has always used it's army to protect US interests and political goals.
So what are some recent 'police' actions?
Lists and lists of this stuff can be made going all the way back to WWII. The US military is at best a corrupt and evil police officer - one who takes bribes for his family, abuses his power, takes prisoners without trial or even cause, often rapes and murders those prisoners, and answers to no-one.
As far as actual police actions? The fully and ridiculously funded US military didn't do a damned thing when Russia blatantly invaded and annexed the Ukraine. China is happily building advance military bases all over the place while thumbing their nose while the US military looks on and does nothing. Historically, it seems that US military response is only really taken when it comes to poorer countries unable to fight back - not big threats. What worse outcome are you expecting with slightly less military funding?
Please understand that I'm not attacking you personally Michael . . . but the organization you work for condones and rewards crimes against humanity, going out of it's way to protect monsters. It's hard to get on board with that.
Understood and I'm not going to go line by line to defend or justify every mistake the US military has made in the last couple of decades. Bad things happen during wars and people die. I disagree that we (the US Military) condone and reward crimes against humanity. You've presented a handful of examples over approximately 20 years of war involving literally millions of people across multiple political administrations and representing different generations of leadership. We have made mistakes both individual (the guy who left a base in Afghanistan in the middle of the night to kill civilians) and systemic (condoning the use of torture in the years immediately after 9/11). However, those have also brought about changes in laws, policies, and organizational culture.
We can look at the areas where the US has failed to act, but we'll never now what wars and tragedies never occurred due to the effect of deterrence. Would North Korea have reinvaded South Korea if the US left - turning a thriving democracy into another open-air prison camp? No one can say for sure. We can't see what didn't happen.
-
I'm not sure how the money should be most effectively apportioned for long term success and support for our population. However, I'm pretty certain that more infrastructure spending in my husband's home state would not have done anything to put my husband on a path out of poverty to the upper middle class and professional fulfillment and accolades. I can kind of squint and see how it might have improved his life slightly had he NOT gone into the military and remained lower/middle income, blue collar, so I'm open to hypothetical projections. It's just that I doubt he would have had nearly as good a life overall, had the military not provided an 'escape route'.
I assume that you are in reference to the GI Bill, of which I'm a huge fan. But we could re-open the CCC (https://www.history.com/topics/great-depression/civilian-conservation-corps) and give everyone who joins it "GI" benefits.
Not sure why you would assume that. My husband's experience was long after the GI Bill...there was nothing like that involved. But I agree that we should set up some sort of civil service option with educational support as part of the benefits.
Because you didn't elaborate and a lot of people in my family and social circle used GI benefits to go to school.
-
The US has always used it's army to protect US interests and political goals.
So what are some recent 'police' actions?
Lists and lists of this stuff can be made going all the way back to WWII. The US military is at best a corrupt and evil police officer - one who takes bribes for his family, abuses his power, takes prisoners without trial or even cause, often rapes and murders those prisoners, and answers to no-one.
As far as actual police actions? The fully and ridiculously funded US military didn't do a damned thing when Russia blatantly invaded and annexed the Ukraine. China is happily building advance military bases all over the place while thumbing their nose while the US military looks on and does nothing. Historically, it seems that US military response is only really taken when it comes to poorer countries unable to fight back - not big threats. What worse outcome are you expecting with slightly less military funding?
Please understand that I'm not attacking you personally Michael . . . but the organization you work for condones and rewards crimes against humanity, going out of it's way to protect monsters. It's hard to get on board with that.
Understood and I'm not going to go line by line to defend or justify every mistake the US military has made in the last couple of decades. Bad things happen during wars and people die. I disagree that we (the US Military) condone and reward crimes against humanity. You've presented a handful of examples over approximately 20 years of war involving literally millions of people across multiple political administrations and representing different generations of leadership. We have made mistakes both individual (the guy who left a base in Afghanistan in the middle of the night to kill civilians) and systemic (condoning the use of torture in the years immediately after 9/11). However, those have also brought about changes in laws, policies, and organizational culture.
What lessons were learned by raping prisoners in Abu Grahib? Well, the lessons learned were that almost nobody involved was charged with committing a crime, and that absolutely nobody in the military chain of command was given responsibility for what they ordered.
What policies were changed by operating the Guantanamo torture facility, filled with abducted people (including children) from around the world, and failing to provide anything resembling due process or a trial? The place is still being run, the people in it still have no reasonable hope of decent treatment, and they're still being tortured.
What organizational culture has been fixed after supporting child rapists in Afghanistan? Well, the people who complained about the pedophilia have been ousted from the army. Problem solved - in a way.
While I admire the blind faith you put in this organization, you must know deep down that what you just wrote is total bullshit.
-
I'm not sure how the money should be most effectively apportioned for long term success and support for our population. However, I'm pretty certain that more infrastructure spending in my husband's home state would not have done anything to put my husband on a path out of poverty to the upper middle class and professional fulfillment and accolades. I can kind of squint and see how it might have improved his life slightly had he NOT gone into the military and remained lower/middle income, blue collar, so I'm open to hypothetical projections. It's just that I doubt he would have had nearly as good a life overall, had the military not provided an 'escape route'.
I assume that you are in reference to the GI Bill, of which I'm a huge fan. But we could re-open the CCC (https://www.history.com/topics/great-depression/civilian-conservation-corps) and give everyone who joins it "GI" benefits.
Not sure why you would assume that. My husband's experience was long after the GI Bill...there was nothing like that involved. But I agree that we should set up some sort of civil service option with educational support as part of the benefits.
Because you didn't elaborate and a lot of people in my family and social circle used GI benefits to go to school.
While I think the GI Bill is a great benefit, I think the bigger impact is getting people away from their usual.
They meet people from different places and ways of life, they don't have their hometown reputation to help or hinder. They might end up doing something they never even thought of. It was an eye-opening experience for me. And the main reason I often encourage people to seriously consider at least one term of service. I wish there was a civilian equivalent.
-
I assume that you are in reference to the GI Bill, of which I'm a huge fan. But we could re-open the CCC (https://www.history.com/topics/great-depression/civilian-conservation-corps) and give everyone who joins it "GI" benefits.
For me the GI Bill was good for me but so was the enlisted experience. Lots of growing up. Lots of redefining what "hard" is. The money helped me pay for college but the challenge helped me want to work hard for my dreams. Also, good to get out of my parents' home.
I agree on a civilian equivalent. A CCC org would be good. Lots of work needs to be done.
-
I'm not sure how the money should be most effectively apportioned for long term success and support for our population. However, I'm pretty certain that more infrastructure spending in my husband's home state would not have done anything to put my husband on a path out of poverty to the upper middle class and professional fulfillment and accolades. I can kind of squint and see how it might have improved his life slightly had he NOT gone into the military and remained lower/middle income, blue collar, so I'm open to hypothetical projections. It's just that I doubt he would have had nearly as good a life overall, had the military not provided an 'escape route'.
I assume that you are in reference to the GI Bill, of which I'm a huge fan. But we could re-open the CCC (https://www.history.com/topics/great-depression/civilian-conservation-corps) and give everyone who joins it "GI" benefits.
Not sure why you would assume that. My husband's experience was long after the GI Bill...there was nothing like that involved. But I agree that we should set up some sort of civil service option with educational support as part of the benefits.
Because you didn't elaborate and a lot of people in my family and social circle used GI benefits to go to school.
Oh, interesting. I thought my Silent Gen and older Boomers (my husband is a tail end Boomer) were the last generations to have access to that kind of thing. My husband said there was some small 'match' for possible schooling when he served, but nothing like a GI bill. He didn't use it...he was paid so little it didn't occur to him that it would add up to anything. He also never even considered the possibility of college until AFTER all the experiences, gaining maturity and toughness, and getting out and away from his home area that being enlisted and serving provided. It opened up a world of possibilities that he never had considered or begun to believe he could ever achieve.
-
Oh, interesting. I thought my Silent Gen and older Boomers (my husband is a tail end Boomer) were the last generations to have access to that kind of thing. My husband said there was some small 'match' for possible schooling when he served, but nothing like a GI bill. He didn't use it...he was paid so little it didn't occur to him that it would add up to anything.
It continues to get updated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-9/11_Veterans_Educational_Assistance_Act_of_2008
It put my uncle through college in the 1960s, and then his son AFAIK. I definitely went to school with people using the benefits.
-
The US has always used it's army to protect US interests and political goals.
So what are some recent 'police' actions?
Lists and lists of this stuff can be made going all the way back to WWII. The US military is at best a corrupt and evil police officer - one who takes bribes for his family, abuses his power, takes prisoners without trial or even cause, often rapes and murders those prisoners, and answers to no-one.
As far as actual police actions? The fully and ridiculously funded US military didn't do a damned thing when Russia blatantly invaded and annexed the Ukraine. China is happily building advance military bases all over the place while thumbing their nose while the US military looks on and does nothing. Historically, it seems that US military response is only really taken when it comes to poorer countries unable to fight back - not big threats. What worse outcome are you expecting with slightly less military funding?
Please understand that I'm not attacking you personally Michael . . . but the organization you work for condones and rewards crimes against humanity, going out of it's way to protect monsters. It's hard to get on board with that.
Understood and I'm not going to go line by line to defend or justify every mistake the US military has made in the last couple of decades. Bad things happen during wars and people die. I disagree that we (the US Military) condone and reward crimes against humanity. You've presented a handful of examples over approximately 20 years of war involving literally millions of people across multiple political administrations and representing different generations of leadership. We have made mistakes both individual (the guy who left a base in Afghanistan in the middle of the night to kill civilians) and systemic (condoning the use of torture in the years immediately after 9/11). However, those have also brought about changes in laws, policies, and organizational culture.
What lessons were learned by raping prisoners in Abu Grahib? Well, the lessons learned were that almost nobody involved was charged with committing a crime, and that absolutely nobody in the military chain of command was given responsibility for what they ordered.
What policies were changed by operating the Guantanamo torture facility, filled with abducted people (including children) from around the world, and failing to provide anything resembling due process or a trial? The place is still being run, the people in it still have no reasonable hope of decent treatment, and they're still being tortured.
What organizational culture has been fixed after supporting child rapists in Afghanistan? Well, the people who complained about the pedophilia have been ousted from the army. Problem solved - in a way.
While I admire the blind faith you put in this organization, you must know deep down that what you just wrote is total bullshit.
I'm not going to go down this path too far, but it's hard to argue that generally the US military has not been a force for good over the last 50-70 years. The post-WW2 US military led world has never been so peaceful and has never been so prosperous on a global scale. Yes there are incidents that suck and where the US military screwed up or individual actors did bad things. But like without the US military Russia and the EU would be a constant warzone (as europe always was throughout history), the mid-east would still be a mess, and China would probably be warring in Asia, probably fighting some sort of Japan/Aus/India alliance. In an org that large it's easy to cherry pick specific instances of bad people doing bad things, or people screwing up decisions, as you can with any large org that is responsible for millions of individual actors across the globe.
That said, it's very easy for me to talk about the global scale of war deaths never being lower in history as I'm a white male living in Victoria Canada and not a woman living in Kabul. I would suspect the latter might not find the global peace quite so inspiring.
-
Oh, interesting. I thought my Silent Gen and older Boomers (my husband is a tail end Boomer) were the last generations to have access to that kind of thing. My husband said there was some small 'match' for possible schooling when he served, but nothing like a GI bill. He didn't use it...he was paid so little it didn't occur to him that it would add up to anything.
It continues to get updated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-9/11_Veterans_Educational_Assistance_Act_of_2008
It put my uncle through college in the 1960s, and then his son AFAIK. I definitely went to school with people using the benefits.
GI Bill also can still help a person get a mortgage. I found civilian options to be more competitive here but I imagine on the coasts it would be a great resource.
The military will also pay for college classes while a person is in the service. However your duty assignment may not be conducive to studying. On the ship i was stationed on we were haze gray and underway alot - more than most (all?) on the east coast at the time. I heard all at one point. No idea for certain. Was far too busy and tired to study much.
Similar with my shore assignment before that. At one point our leadership decided that we'd switch from days to nights to days every week. Always tired during that period. Of course the decision makers didn't have to live the schedule they invented. ;) The rest of the time the schedule there was reasonable although the days were 12+ hours long. I took a couple of classes. A good period to be single. it was hard on marriages and families. Lots of divorces among my coworkers.
Were I to do it all again I would do it again but do alot of things differently. There were some really good memories from back then. Not every day though. Some days were tough. That's life.
-
Oh, interesting. I thought my Silent Gen and older Boomers (my husband is a tail end Boomer) were the last generations to have access to that kind of thing. My husband said there was some small 'match' for possible schooling when he served, but nothing like a GI bill. He didn't use it...he was paid so little it didn't occur to him that it would add up to anything.
It continues to get updated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-9/11_Veterans_Educational_Assistance_Act_of_2008
It put my uncle through college in the 1960s, and then his son AFAIK. I definitely went to school with people using the benefits.
Good news, indeed!
-
Yeh - The GI Bill is a good thing. It put my dad through college.
You guys want to save the "Empire." Now, I don't like the idea of an empire. The Romans had one for a long time and it didn't always work out well for the guys they conquered. Genghis Khan had one and folks didn't always like it when he and his buds rode into town. Spanish had a big empire in South America. It just seems like the next thing you talk about with that empire is people dying in Silver mines and the inquisition thing.
However, we've got a lot of good things in the USA. We've got small town value. We've got mom and apple pie. We've got people who often help their neighbors. I think maybe saving the "empire" may be about saving some of these good values. How are we going to do that?
It gets harder for people to help their neighbors when there are sick and hungry people getting more and more commonplace. You may not even get to know your neighbors when you are doing the living in the car thing. So, maybe we've got to fix these issues.
Empires are always based on money. Guys who did the conquering were all about the treasure that other people had. Sometimes it was gold. Sometimes it was slaves. So, to keep the empire going, you need the money flowing in. The best way is to make goods and services and have them flow out. Another really good way is to have spare money that you can borrow out with interest.
Maybe, if we just devalued the dollar, we could save the empire. Sure, the stuff from China would be more expensive, but it also means our stuff we make will be cheaper for everybody else. We grow our own food in the US (except bananas and coffee). We now are the biggest oil producer so can be energy self sufficient. So, I don't think our standard of living would take a big hit. However, we would be able to sell all sorts of products to the rest of the world.
China kept their currency low for many years. These guys take the long term view. They've had lots of empires with the dynasty thing. No teacher is better than experience.
https://www.investopedia.com/trading/chinese-devaluation-yuan/ (https://www.investopedia.com/trading/chinese-devaluation-yuan/)
Are the guys in charge already doing this? They are increasing the money supply. They are putting more dollars out there so they should be worth less. Wages are not really rising in the US. Are they smarter than we give them credit for and are saving the empire? Let's hope so. I like mom and apple pie.
You might want to ignore this one and that's OK too.
-
You might consider reading The Lessons Of History by Will and Ariel Durant and The Better Angels Of Our Nature by Steven Pinker. Things aren't as bad as the Guardian, NYT, Wash Post, etc. would have us believe, any more than FOX and Breitbart would have us believe. Doom and gloom just get more clicks. America is in decline, but it's still the best place on earth to live. We also live in the best period in history to live. And everything is getting better. Enjoy life!
Based on what?
I think the US is a pretty good place to live for a white, middle class or above, healthy person. But having lived other places (and seen both their flaws and their strengths), I am not sure I think it is "the best". You throw that out there, and I'm wondering what metric you are using, because we are #1 in almost none of the positive lists.
-
You might consider reading The Lessons Of History by Will and Ariel Durant and The Better Angels Of Our Nature by Steven Pinker. Things aren't as bad as the Guardian, NYT, Wash Post, etc. would have us believe, any more than FOX and Breitbart would have us believe. Doom and gloom just get more clicks. America is in decline, but it's still the best place on earth to live. We also live in the best period in history to live. And everything is getting better. Enjoy life!
Based on what?
I think the US is a pretty good place to live for a white, middle class or above, healthy person. But having lived other places (and seen both their flaws and their strengths), I am not sure I think it is "the best". You throw that out there, and I'm wondering what metric you are using, because we are #1 in almost none of the positive lists.
In normal times, the US is a bunch of different places, some good, some bad. This applies to schools, roads, crime levels, etc. The wealth disparity makes this more pronounced. On average the US is not as good as many other developed countries on a lot of measures (and even some undeveloped ones when it comes to maternal/infant mortality). Exceptionalism is getting in the way of actually improving things.
-
I've lived in the U.S. and I would say that if you are lucky enough to be in the 75th percentile or above for intelligence and 50th percentile or above for health and you live in a blue state, there is no better place to live if you want financial success and a good lifestyle.
For the average person, it's not a great place to live.
-
I've lived in the U.S. and I would say that if you are lucky enough to be in the 75th percentile or above for intelligence and 50th percentile or above for health and you live in a blue state, there is no better place to live if you want financial success and a good lifestyle.
For the average person, it's not a great place to live.
The "average person" has been told by right wing media, I mean Faux News (technically they are an entertainment channel) and its recent spawn, that "'Murica's the greatest nation on earth". So despite all the ratfuckery by the GOP, their followers will suck up the bad and still believe this is part of being the greatest nation.
The US of A is not perfect, it'll always be a few steps forward and back, ad nauseum. By all means, one may leave if they wish if they can have better outcomes elsewhere.
-
I've lived in the U.S. and I would say that if you are lucky enough to be in the 75th percentile or above for intelligence and 50th percentile or above for health and you live in a blue state, there is no better place to live if you want financial success and a good lifestyle.
For the average person, it's not a great place to live.
I currently live in the USA and had spent a majority of my 40+ years doing so, mostly in blue states. I meet the criteria you lay out, and I'm still not sure I'd agree there is no better place to live. For me, at least. What is "better" varies by person, but I'm not sure that even for those in your sub category, the US is definitively "best".
-
I can easily think of 3 other great places to live that are "western democracies" - Canada (a bit chilly at times), Australia and New Zealand. A bit harder to get super rich but a lot easier to be generally OK. Basically for the same reason - more taxes but universal health care and less expensive good education (Colleges and Universities).
-
Portugal, Albania, Colombia, Nicaragua, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, and half of the Caribbean will all happily take FIRE folks with appropriate investments. Those are just off the top my head, I'm sure that there are more.
A few of those aren't exactly countries known for being safe, governmentally stable, and with non-corrupt governments. Somebody leaving a wealthy and safe part of Vermont to live in Nicaragua because they think the US is politically unstable and unsafe may not experience the outcome they were hoping for. Good luck to them though. To each their own.
Fair enough. I just realized that Chile currently has a lower violent crime rate than the USA and visa options for many of the people on this site.
-
Portugal, Albania, Colombia, Nicaragua, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, and half of the Caribbean will all happily take FIRE folks with appropriate investments. Those are just off the top my head, I'm sure that there are more.
A few of those aren't exactly countries known for being safe, governmentally stable, and with non-corrupt governments. Somebody leaving a wealthy and safe part of Vermont to live in Nicaragua because they think the US is politically unstable and unsafe may not experience the outcome they were hoping for. Good luck to them though. To each their own.
Fair enough. I just realized that Chile currently has a lower violent crime rate than the USA and visa options for many of the people on this site.
People don't want to live somewhere so cold they called it 'chilly'.
:P
-
I can easily think of 3 other great places to live that are "western democracies" - Canada (a bit chilly at times), Australia and New Zealand. A bit harder to get super rich but a lot easier to be generally OK. Basically for the same reason - more taxes but universal health care and less expensive good education (Colleges and Universities).
Income in Germany is usually lower than in the US for high paying jobs, but I‘m not sure taxes are really higher for everyone. It really depends on your situation. In Germany you might not have to pay social security at all, very little in health insurance and almost nothing in property taxes. VAT (sales tax) and income tax is significantly higher, but only if you live more than a certain number of days in Germany and consume a lot. For comparison, I pay $0 in social security, $2,700 for health insurance (unlimited coverage, $3,000 deductible) and $400 property taxes ($700,000 property value) per year. Yes, my income tax is a lot higher than in the US, VAT not so much, since I‘m not buying as much. You are not going to be rich as easily as in the US, but if you know how to play the game, you might end up paying less here.
-
When the American Empire ends, the land will still be here and most of the people will still be here. What will it be replaced with? Will it be chopped up? Will a functioning Democracy take it's place? People are kind of set on voting for their leaders and most are decent so I can't see it changing too much.
With far more money being spent by the people in power than they are taking in, the end may be sooner than we think. We'll see some poor times first until things are made right.
Maybe the military has got an artificial intelligence that'll run things. It obviously ain't running it now.
It will be time to abandon the 4 percent rule.
-
I just hope we don't fall apart completely before the real adults can take charge.
-
I've lived in the U.S. and I would say that if you are lucky enough to be in the 75th percentile or above for intelligence and 50th percentile or above for health and you live in a blue state, there is no better place to live if you want financial success and a good lifestyle.
For the average person, it's not a great place to live.
"You know, 95% of life is settled if you're born in America." Mitt Romney
"I'll tell ya, there is—95 percent of life is set up for you if you're born in this country." Mitt Romney
-
I can easily think of 3 other great places to live that are "western democracies" - Canada (a bit chilly at times), Australia and New Zealand. A bit harder to get super rich but a lot easier to be generally OK. Basically for the same reason - more taxes but universal health care and less expensive good education (Colleges and Universities).
Income in Germany is usually lower than in the US for high paying jobs, but I‘m not sure taxes are really higher for everyone. It really depends on your situation. In Germany you might not have to pay social security at all, very little in health insurance and almost nothing in property taxes. VAT (sales tax) and income tax is significantly higher, but only if you live more than a certain number of days in Germany and consume a lot. For comparison, I pay $0 in social security, $2,700 for health insurance (unlimited coverage, $3,000 deductible) and $400 property taxes ($700,000 property value) per year. Yes, my income tax is a lot higher than in the US, VAT not so much, since I‘m not buying as much. You are not going to be rich as easily as in the US, but if you know how to play the game, you might end up paying less here.
Yeah income tax isn't often an apples to oranges comparison between countries. It often needs to be something like Canadas income taxes vs America income taxes + health care costs. I would bet America's is actually more expensive over most peoples life times due to the health care costs.
-
Yeah income tax isn't often an apples to oranges comparison between countries. It often needs to be something like Canadas income taxes vs America income taxes + health care costs. I would bet America's is actually more expensive over most peoples life times due to the health care costs.
It also depends a lot on what state you live in and how much you make. For example, Oregon income taxes are relatively high if you make enough. Almost high enough to be on par with Canada or Scotland once you add in the federal, but the Canadian and Scottish services are way better.
On the other hand Washington doesn't have an income tax.
-
It also depends a lot on what state you live in and how much you make. For example, Oregon income taxes are relatively high if you make enough. Almost high enough to be on par with Canada or Scotland once you add in the federal, but the Canadian and Scottish services are way better.
On the other hand Washington doesn't have an income tax.
It‘s the opposite for sales tax, though. Oregon has none, Washington has a minimum of 6.5%. Obviously this encourages folks to live in Washington state, like in Vancouver, and shop in Oregon, across the river in Portland. I think you are supposed to pay sales tax, when you buy something in Oregon and bring it home into Washington, but is that even enforced?
-
It also depends a lot on what state you live in and how much you make. For example, Oregon income taxes are relatively high if you make enough. Almost high enough to be on par with Canada or Scotland once you add in the federal, but the Canadian and Scottish services are way better.
On the other hand Washington doesn't have an income tax.
It‘s the opposite for sales tax, though. Oregon has none, Washington has a minimum of 6.5%. Obviously this encourages folks to live in Washington state, like in Vancouver, and shop in Oregon, across the river in Portland. I think you are supposed to pay sales tax, when you buy something in Oregon and bring it home into Washington, but is that even enforced?
It isn't enforced, but even if it was it is no where as large of a tax burden for the middle or upper classes. The marginal tax rate for OR income taxes for almost everyone in the state is 8.75%, and groceries are not actually taxed in WA.