Newbie
Posts: 12 
February 4th, 2008, 03:21 PM
Karrie, your point is well-raised, but one can be at once a republic and an empire. A very common modern definition of "empire" (since the days of emperors are long gone) is a "state which comprises many nations." The USA certainly has a state which comprises many nations: American Indians, Somoans, Puerto Ricans, the list goes on. Many of these lands were taken by conquest, if that is also to be one of the requirements to define an empire.
For example, the French Colonial Empire existed under several Republics.
PS- darkbeaver, let us recall that the USA single-handed reflated the European economy, which comprises 13 of the 20 largest economies in the world with the Marshall Plans. Also lets note very closely that the two most integrated economies in the world are without doubt the US and Canadian economies. Canada isn't doing too badly.
Karrie, your point is well-raised, but one can be at once a republic and an empire. A very common modern definition of "empire" (since the days of emperors are long gone) is a "state which comprises many nations." The USA certainly has a state which comprises many nations: American Indians, Somoans, Puerto Ricans, the list goes on. Many of these lands were taken by conquest, if that is also to be one of the requirements to define an empire.
For example, the French Colonial Empire existed under several Republics.
PS- darkbeaver, let us recall that the USA single-handed reflated the European economy, which comprises 13 of the 20 largest economies in the world with the Marshall Plans. Also lets note very closely that the two most integrated economies in the world are without doubt the US and Canadian economies. Canada isn't doing too badly.
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 10,206 
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
February 4th, 2008, 03:21 PM
American imperialism is a fact, it has overlap with the wider western empire, both vasal to the banking empire. Together they make up the western world. England was a paliamentry democracy and empire at the same time.One's a state of domestic governance and the other a economic and military reality with the added twentyth century twist of cultural conquest. Yeah you're being too technical, way too technical.
Quoting karrie
I'm totally confused by what I've read of this thread.
America can't even enter the contest, let alone be declared 'greatest empire' so the arguments are all kind of moot. If I know anything about American history the US is a republic, not an empire. Or are we all just sort of ignoring that? Am I being too technical in terminology?
America can't even enter the contest, let alone be declared 'greatest empire' so the arguments are all kind of moot. If I know anything about American history the US is a republic, not an empire. Or are we all just sort of ignoring that? Am I being too technical in terminology?
American imperialism is a fact, it has overlap with the wider western empire, both vasal to the banking empire. Together they make up the western world. England was a paliamentry democracy and empire at the same time.One's a state of domestic governance and the other a economic and military reality with the added twentyth century twist of cultural conquest. Yeah you're being too technical, way too technical.
Newbie
Posts: 12
February 4th, 2008, 03:23 PM
Well, she's not being too technical, she's just using an older definition. My definition is one that has been treated as relatively standard, while yours is a new and somewhat contentious one (although I believe it to be a very good one which is pertinent to the modern state of world affairs.)
Well, she's not being too technical, she's just using an older definition. My definition is one that has been treated as relatively standard, while yours is a new and somewhat contentious one (although I believe it to be a very good one which is pertinent to the modern state of world affairs.)
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 10,206
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
February 4th, 2008, 03:34 PM
Quoting Bilton101
Yes it did. And why did it do that? It did that to erect and maintain economic border between two competing spheres of power specifally to set up the feeding trough called the western economy a trough for the military industrial complex which drove an enormous part of the American economy both in Europe and Asia this fueled further military buildup which enabled further corporate and industrial conquest and opening up of entire regions to American resource stripping. Classic imperialism the military drives ahead clears the indiginous industrys and natives to the sidelines installs puppet governments and milks the vassalized states literally to death. We would be intigrated with any empire America is the third of the modern era, France Britian and now America relatively soon we'll be great trading partners with the Chinese if we can avoid the economic collapse of the American empire and the ensueing police state. In review of the reinflation of the countrys destroyed by the allies we can seee that the American economy got every dollar back many many times over, empires don't give anything away never have never will, the asset pipe goes one way despite what it might look like. You might want to reconsider your "single handed" idea, as there were more than one hand in the pocket of europe, big money ain't got no soul.
Karrie, your point is well-raised, but one can be at once a republic and an empire. A very common modern definition of "empire" (since the days of emperors are long gone) is a "state which comprises many nations." The USA certainly has a state which comprises many nations: American Indians, Somoans, Puerto Ricans, the list goes on. Many of these lands were taken by conquest, if that is also to be one of the requirements to define an empire.
For example, the French Colonial Empire existed under several Republics.
PS- darkbeaver, let us recall that the USA single-handed reflated the European economy, which comprises 13 of the 20 largest economies in the world with the Marshall Plans. Also lets note very closely that the two most integrated economies in the world are without doubt the US and Canadian economies. Canada isn't doing too badly.
For example, the French Colonial Empire existed under several Republics.
PS- darkbeaver, let us recall that the USA single-handed reflated the European economy, which comprises 13 of the 20 largest economies in the world with the Marshall Plans. Also lets note very closely that the two most integrated economies in the world are without doubt the US and Canadian economies. Canada isn't doing too badly.
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 10,206
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
February 4th, 2008, 04:03 PM
Quoting Bilton101
Fundamentally that's the way it works man. Big economys destroy smaller ones, an economy is an extension of military and political power. Full spectrum domination Bilton, get your facts straightened out in your head. The economys of the western world are as integrated as Nato is, America is just the biggest most powerful piece but power is very quickly transferrable now, as the American economic disaster unfolds we will see military and economic power shift to safer zones like say the UAE and surrounding areas. What country have I overlooked when I stated defeated destroyed and sacked?
You are right. We did benefit massively, but so did Western European economies. Benefit is not wrong. The point, though, is still that the statement that the USA "defeated ,destroyed and sacked every economy it ever touched" is fundamentally false.
Newbie
Posts: 12
February 4th, 2008, 04:37 PM
It's very kind of you to care about me getting my facts straight so much, but I think it might be a good idea to review basic economics. First of all, the USA is not facing an economic disaster. It's facing a dramatic market correction which has been a long time coming due to unbalanced trade situations. And big economies do not necessarily destroy smaller ones. Politics can, but does not always. Why doesn't it? Because people to trade with, people to buy your government's debt, people to supply you with your goods are all necessary. A certain level of economic well-being, especially among allies is always valuable to a state.
It is mostly accurate to say the economic power is being redistributed right now, once again due to market imbalances. In any case, the USA has had its hands in every major Western European Economy, and they are all in pretty good shape: England, France, Germany, and Italy all have basically sound economic systems which are suffering somewhat only from socialist policies created by their own leaders, not by the USA.
It's very kind of you to care about me getting my facts straight so much, but I think it might be a good idea to review basic economics. First of all, the USA is not facing an economic disaster. It's facing a dramatic market correction which has been a long time coming due to unbalanced trade situations. And big economies do not necessarily destroy smaller ones. Politics can, but does not always. Why doesn't it? Because people to trade with, people to buy your government's debt, people to supply you with your goods are all necessary. A certain level of economic well-being, especially among allies is always valuable to a state.
It is mostly accurate to say the economic power is being redistributed right now, once again due to market imbalances. In any case, the USA has had its hands in every major Western European Economy, and they are all in pretty good shape: England, France, Germany, and Italy all have basically sound economic systems which are suffering somewhat only from socialist policies created by their own leaders, not by the USA.
Electoral Member
Posts: 909
Location: Ardrossan, Alberta
Location: Ardrossan, Alberta
February 4th, 2008, 04:46 PM
Quoting Bilton101
Yes and they have their hands in your pocket, China for one- if it so chooses could reduce your dollar to toilet paper if they decide to rid themselves of the 1.1 trillion dollars in securitie they presently hold- once they dumped it every other country would hop on the bandwagon not wanting to be the last one out.
the USA has had its hands in every major Western European Economy,
Newbie
Posts: 12
February 4th, 2008, 04:56 PM
This is true, and the global economic infrastructure would go with it. It's not being melodramatic, it's just a fact, the US dollar is still the dominant currency of reserve, so a massive devaluation of the dollar would result effectively in governments, corporations, and individuals going bankrupt everywhere. China would lose its markets abroad that have allowed it to build up these huge currency reserves, and its economy would collapse too. China is tied to our debt. They crash the dollar, their economy goes too. So, until the US Government defaults on its debt, which it is unlikely to ever do, or otherwise the US government implodes or suffers a massive loss of power, the dollar is fine.
It's my assessment that even in the case of war between China and the USA, the USA would simply renig its debt to all enemies while simultaneously, reassuring all allied and neutral states with higher interest rates.
This is true, and the global economic infrastructure would go with it. It's not being melodramatic, it's just a fact, the US dollar is still the dominant currency of reserve, so a massive devaluation of the dollar would result effectively in governments, corporations, and individuals going bankrupt everywhere. China would lose its markets abroad that have allowed it to build up these huge currency reserves, and its economy would collapse too. China is tied to our debt. They crash the dollar, their economy goes too. So, until the US Government defaults on its debt, which it is unlikely to ever do, or otherwise the US government implodes or suffers a massive loss of power, the dollar is fine.
It's my assessment that even in the case of war between China and the USA, the USA would simply renig its debt to all enemies while simultaneously, reassuring all allied and neutral states with higher interest rates.
Electoral Member
Posts: 909
Location: Ardrossan, Alberta
Location: Ardrossan, Alberta
February 4th, 2008, 05:10 PM
That would be a prudent strategy- but many economies are slowly cashing us securities in, it only takes one to panic and send the market into a free fall, to have so much debt abroad is a perilous strategy that could inadvertantly send a lot of economies into a tail spin- The US enemies do not sit on their hands- The U.S. is hacked everyday by the Chinese they are learning more and more about you all the time.
That would be a prudent strategy- but many economies are slowly cashing us securities in, it only takes one to panic and send the market into a free fall, to have so much debt abroad is a perilous strategy that could inadvertantly send a lot of economies into a tail spin- The US enemies do not sit on their hands- The U.S. is hacked everyday by the Chinese they are learning more and more about you all the time.
Newbie
Posts: 12
February 4th, 2008, 05:25 PM
You're right. You're very very right. However, don't think for a second that other countries would not safeguard themselves and their investments by buying US currency as it's being sold off. For example, the Bank of Japan has made a habit of bolstering the dollar. Persian Gulf nations need a robust USA to sell their oil to, and they're the ones sitting on the mountains of cash. This is without mentioning that nearly half of US Debt is still held domestically, an important buffer. Furthermore, don't think for a second that the USA wouldn't take instant action. The USA doubtless is aware of the dangerous amount of debt it has abroad and has plans in place. It seems likely that the US gold, platinum, and oil reserves could be used as a tool to help secure the currency, for example.
The shift has been gradual and healthy and will continue to be so. The market is too well-regulated for the world's lone hyperpower to allow its currency to collapse. And the well-being of too many economies, individuals, and companies require a stable dollar
Finally, exports account for a tiny proportion of the US economy. Exports form the backbone of the Chinese economy. China, therefore, has much more to lose by destroying the global economy by catastrophically devaluing the dollar. The US economy would tumble and tumble hard, but not nearly so hard as its main rival, China's. It's absurd to suggest that China would provoke the US to war by destroying its economy and then put itself at a disadvantage. (not to mention: the USA still has many more nukes than China... China's not going to risk that.) No, if China wants war, it will invade Taiwan. This invasion would provoke global sell-off of the dollar, but in the case of an invasion, the USA would likely have enough warning to cancel its debt to China and promptly reaffirm all friendly owners of debt with higher interest rates. This would still be exceptionally economically damaging, but would handily ruin China's finances, vastly reduce US national debt, and preclude the disaster that could happen otherwise.
EDIT- actually, I was also just thinking... in the case of massive sell-offs, it seems likely that major instruments of US power abroad would also be forced into action. Take, for example, the IMF which has hundreds of billions of dollars available in quotas and 100 billion in gold.
You're right. You're very very right. However, don't think for a second that other countries would not safeguard themselves and their investments by buying US currency as it's being sold off. For example, the Bank of Japan has made a habit of bolstering the dollar. Persian Gulf nations need a robust USA to sell their oil to, and they're the ones sitting on the mountains of cash. This is without mentioning that nearly half of US Debt is still held domestically, an important buffer. Furthermore, don't think for a second that the USA wouldn't take instant action. The USA doubtless is aware of the dangerous amount of debt it has abroad and has plans in place. It seems likely that the US gold, platinum, and oil reserves could be used as a tool to help secure the currency, for example.
The shift has been gradual and healthy and will continue to be so. The market is too well-regulated for the world's lone hyperpower to allow its currency to collapse. And the well-being of too many economies, individuals, and companies require a stable dollar
Finally, exports account for a tiny proportion of the US economy. Exports form the backbone of the Chinese economy. China, therefore, has much more to lose by destroying the global economy by catastrophically devaluing the dollar. The US economy would tumble and tumble hard, but not nearly so hard as its main rival, China's. It's absurd to suggest that China would provoke the US to war by destroying its economy and then put itself at a disadvantage. (not to mention: the USA still has many more nukes than China... China's not going to risk that.) No, if China wants war, it will invade Taiwan. This invasion would provoke global sell-off of the dollar, but in the case of an invasion, the USA would likely have enough warning to cancel its debt to China and promptly reaffirm all friendly owners of debt with higher interest rates. This would still be exceptionally economically damaging, but would handily ruin China's finances, vastly reduce US national debt, and preclude the disaster that could happen otherwise.
EDIT- actually, I was also just thinking... in the case of massive sell-offs, it seems likely that major instruments of US power abroad would also be forced into action. Take, for example, the IMF which has hundreds of billions of dollars available in quotas and 100 billion in gold.
Electoral Member
Posts: 909
Location: Ardrossan, Alberta
Location: Ardrossan, Alberta
February 4th, 2008, 05:36 PM
There will soon be three hyper powers US, China and the EU- much more interesting than just the US and USSR days(Russia/Gazprom are over) - wars of the future may be comprised of winning the hearts, minds and wallets of people not bombing them into submission this is the primary mission of the EU and China it's investment they offer not domination
There will soon be three hyper powers US, China and the EU- much more interesting than just the US and USSR days(Russia/Gazprom are over) - wars of the future may be comprised of winning the hearts, minds and wallets of people not bombing them into submission this is the primary mission of the EU and China it's investment they offer not domination
Newbie
Posts: 12
February 4th, 2008, 05:51 PM
I think by definition there can only be one hyperpower at a time. If there's more than one, they go back to being superpowers. But that's semantics.
You really think the EU will be a superpower? I find that extraordinarily doubtful. Until the EU can field an army (which it won't be able to for a loooong time) it doesn't really represent a force to be dealt with. Keep in mind that the reason economic size is so important in terms of international power is exclusively because of its ability to be translated into military power. This is because any state's first goal is survival. If it feels it is at risk of destruction, it will resort to violence to survive. Fortunately we are arriving in a day and age when other means are often tried first, but in the end, states that see their futures in the balance will fight combative war.
As for the argument of "investment vs. domination" aren't they the same in many respects? After all, China has invested in US debt and it's your argument that because of this, China effectively rules the US economy. America rose to be the greatest empire in this very same way. We only militarily dominated at first, then we won hearts and minds and wallets (and cast down the USSR, so econo-military might certainly played its part.)
I think by definition there can only be one hyperpower at a time. If there's more than one, they go back to being superpowers. But that's semantics.
You really think the EU will be a superpower? I find that extraordinarily doubtful. Until the EU can field an army (which it won't be able to for a loooong time) it doesn't really represent a force to be dealt with. Keep in mind that the reason economic size is so important in terms of international power is exclusively because of its ability to be translated into military power. This is because any state's first goal is survival. If it feels it is at risk of destruction, it will resort to violence to survive. Fortunately we are arriving in a day and age when other means are often tried first, but in the end, states that see their futures in the balance will fight combative war.
As for the argument of "investment vs. domination" aren't they the same in many respects? After all, China has invested in US debt and it's your argument that because of this, China effectively rules the US economy. America rose to be the greatest empire in this very same way. We only militarily dominated at first, then we won hearts and minds and wallets (and cast down the USSR, so econo-military might certainly played its part.)
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 10,206
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
February 4th, 2008, 05:56 PM
It defaulted on it's debt once already in the seventys when it went off the gold standard. The Vietnam War was very expensive.
It defaulted on it's debt once already in the seventys when it went off the gold standard. The Vietnam War was very expensive.
Newbie
Posts: 12
February 4th, 2008, 06:10 PM
...That's just not true. The last time the USA defaulted on its debt was in 1935 when the Supreme Court upheld the default on T-bonds.
When the USA went off the gold standard it just allowed its currency to float. It had literally nothing to do with a default on debt.
...That's just not true. The last time the USA defaulted on its debt was in 1935 when the Supreme Court upheld the default on T-bonds.
When the USA went off the gold standard it just allowed its currency to float. It had literally nothing to do with a default on debt.
Electoral Member
Posts: 909
Location: Ardrossan, Alberta
Location: Ardrossan, Alberta
February 4th, 2008, 06:10 PM
The EU as an entity is in it's infancy but it already consists of 27 first world Nations with each having it's own military, so really in fact ther EU has the military might, It is comprised of 500 million people with wads of EUROs 16.7 trillion I think was the GDP of the EU, so it has the cash- you have to look at it in relation to the US model -does the state of NY have more money than the State of England, Does Ohio have More than Germany. Every year they take on a new member absorb it, stabilize it and start the process again- there is a line up of Nations waiting to get in.
The EU as an entity is in it's infancy but it already consists of 27 first world Nations with each having it's own military, so really in fact ther EU has the military might, It is comprised of 500 million people with wads of EUROs 16.7 trillion I think was the GDP of the EU, so it has the cash- you have to look at it in relation to the US model -does the state of NY have more money than the State of England, Does Ohio have More than Germany. Every year they take on a new member absorb it, stabilize it and start the process again- there is a line up of Nations waiting to get in.
Newbie
Posts: 12
February 4th, 2008, 06:20 PM
This is true, but the EU model of multiple militaries is fundamentally inefficient and could not possibly produce a military powerful enough to go up against the US military or even the Chinese military after say a decade. The EU is still too nationally fractured to form a united army: Poles will not fight alongside Germans, will not fight alongside Frenchmen, will not fight alongside Spaniards. Also, the EU spends a tiny percentage of its GDP on the military. In 2003, the EU spent 1.7 percent of its GDP on military costs. It was 169 billion euro. Meanwhile, the US spent about 500 billion dollars.
It is clear that the EU is far away from the necessary level of unity for effective military operation to form. The EU Constitution was resoundingly voted down showing popular nationalism. There have been grumbles in Germany, France, and Italy against ECB. Britain, Europe's second largest economy, refuses to accept the Euro and has always been very nationalistically independent minded about Europe
PS- California, at $1.7t has a larger economy than Germany, Britain, France, and Italy.
This is true, but the EU model of multiple militaries is fundamentally inefficient and could not possibly produce a military powerful enough to go up against the US military or even the Chinese military after say a decade. The EU is still too nationally fractured to form a united army: Poles will not fight alongside Germans, will not fight alongside Frenchmen, will not fight alongside Spaniards. Also, the EU spends a tiny percentage of its GDP on the military. In 2003, the EU spent 1.7 percent of its GDP on military costs. It was 169 billion euro. Meanwhile, the US spent about 500 billion dollars.
It is clear that the EU is far away from the necessary level of unity for effective military operation to form. The EU Constitution was resoundingly voted down showing popular nationalism. There have been grumbles in Germany, France, and Italy against ECB. Britain, Europe's second largest economy, refuses to accept the Euro and has always been very nationalistically independent minded about Europe
PS- California, at $1.7t has a larger economy than Germany, Britain, France, and Italy.
Electoral Member
Posts: 909
Location: Ardrossan, Alberta
Location: Ardrossan, Alberta
February 4th, 2008, 06:38 PM
that's why i didn't mention them lol - I'm not saying today mind you but down the road the way they are going, to me it looks like they will be a force to be reckoned with- Empires do not last foreever sometime they sow the seeds of their owm demise as Rome did in it's last days-
that's why i didn't mention them lol - I'm not saying today mind you but down the road the way they are going, to me it looks like they will be a force to be reckoned with- Empires do not last foreever sometime they sow the seeds of their owm demise as Rome did in it's last days-
