The long slow endl of the American era

[Skybird]

Quite long, but very realistically summerizing the mood as I believe I perceive it from media all around:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-581502,00.html

But with the sun of the American era setting, there comes the need for the Europeans to show that they can be masters of their own fate without comfortably leaving leadership and responsibility coming along with it to Washington. That is both a chance and a risk for Europe - and unfortuantely, considering the way the EU formed itself over the past 14 or 15 years, there is good reason to have some doubts that it can make it. Time will tell, and we cannot avoid to see it: for a return to the old order of american dominance is out of question, I think.

[Tchocky]

Nice to see our German friend once more forecasting the end of America.

Anything Der Spiegel says, eh Skybird?


:arrgh!:

[Skybird]

Nice to see our German friend once more forecasting the end of America.

Anything Der Spiegel says, eh Skybird?


:arrgh!:

If it matches what I think, yes. So not "anything", but "some things".

and why the black-white paitning? The end of America and end of the American world order are two different things. The british empire is no more, too, but Britain until today survived that.

Leave my person out of it, Tchocky. Argue with the essay, or don't.

[Tchocky]

Cool your jets, I'm only taking the piss. :p

[Sea Demon]

Leave my person out of it, Tchocky. Argue with the essay, or don't.
Or holy hell, I'll put you on ignore too. That'll show ya'. :lol: :arrgh!:

[August]

Leave my person out of it, Tchocky. Argue with the essay, or don't.
Or holy hell, I'll put you on ignore too. That'll show ya'. :lol: :arrgh!:

I'm quite happy to be on Skybirds ignore list. I get to talk about him and he doesn't even know it unless one of you guys quote me... :lol:

[nikimcbee]

Anything else?:roll:
http://eatourbrains.com/EoB/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/troll.jpg

[Konovalov]

Leave my person out of it, Tchocky. Argue with the essay, or don't.
He was joking. Taking the mickey. That kind of thing. Nothing more, nothing less. :yep:

[Digital_Trucker]

That "essay" is almost as long as some peoples posts around here.:hmm:

Lots of opinion in it, though. :yep:

[August]

Lots of opinion in it, though. :yep:

Yeah and barely concealed glee by those who subscribe to it.

UN out of the US, US out of the UN!

[baggygreen]

Well heres my question.

*IF* the article is right and the US's era as chief superpower is coming to an end, who is going to step into its role? And will we in the west like the way they do things?:hmm:

[UnderseaLcpl]

Well heres my question.

*IF* the article is right and the US's era as chief superpower is coming to an end, who is going to step into its role? And will we in the west like the way they do things?:hmm:

China. Probably not.

[nikimcbee]

Well heres my question.

*IF* the article is right and the US's era as chief superpower is coming to an end, who is going to step into its role? And will we in the west like the way they do things?:hmm:

China. Probably not.

I say China too. Russia is too backwards. Russia has the resources to lead, but they have been crippled by the communism cancer. Europe is too divided.

China has the will power and the business savy.

[CCIP]

I say China too. Russia is too backwards. Russia has the resources to lead, but they have been crippled by the communism cancer. Europe is too divided.

China has the will power and the business savy.

Last I checked, it was China and not Russia still ruled by a communist party :hmm:

[nikimcbee]

Now if all of Asia were to somehow unite:hmm: . The Asian work ethic? Now that would be unstoppable.

[CCIP]

Now if all of Asia were to somehow unite:hmm: . The Asian work ethic? Now that would be unstoppable.

To an extent that's a bit of a stereotype.

Otherwise Asia has about as much chance of uniting within itself as China has a chance of uniting with America. It's a nasty misperception that there's anywhere near a common culture between them. It only seems that way to a Westerner.

[nikimcbee]

I say China too. Russia is too backwards. Russia has the resources to lead, but they have been crippled by the communism cancer. Europe is too divided.

China has the will power and the business savy.

Last I checked, it was China and not Russia still ruled by a communist party :hmm:

You are right, but the communist party has "gotten out of the way" so to speak. There was an interesting show on PBS regarding China. There's the capitalist half and the communist half. The capitalist half (vis a vie) Hong Kong is still very successful. I'm under the impression that as long as HK doesn't cause any problems for the Party, the party doesn't bother them.

Then there's the communist half, they are backwards as it gets. There is no money for their healthcare and education. The gov't controled businesses can't compete with the private ones.

China has some interesting problems though. They need to keep the peasants on the peasant side of the country. If they Chinese gov't looses control of the peasants and they leave the farmland to the city, China will collapse fast!

Here's the link:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/red/view/

[nikimcbee]

Now if all of Asia were to somehow unite:hmm: . The Asian work ethic? Now that would be unstoppable.

To an extent that's a bit of a stereotype.

Otherwise Asia has about as much chance of uniting within itself as China has a chance of uniting with America. It's a nasty misperception that there's anywhere near a common culture between them. It only seems that way to a Westerner.

Not at all! I worked for a Korean company, and they are VERY hard workers. fortunatly for the West China/Japan/Korea don't play too nicely together. (atleast historically)

I don't understand Asian culture at all, but I've had some interesting insights into it the last few years.

[nikimcbee]

first 5 minutes says it all:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/youngchina/

New show on China.

[Skybird]

I do not see any power after the US dominating the world ever again as happened between the end of the cold war until the present. It is going to turn into a multipolar world with several power centres. Most obviously China, and Europe, for it's temporary wealth from selling energy ressources: Russia, for fading in power and influence only slowly: America, and the coming economic superstates: Brazil, India. Brzezinski probably sees it absolutely correctly when arguing that the US did not turn into a true superpower before the USSR fell, becasue the USSR was strong enough for four decades to force america to act with self-restraint due to this strong rival on the global stage. After 1989 and the detah of the USSR, we saw the first -. and, as Brzezinski argues - also the last true superpower in history. The american era began in WW2, some would even argue WWI, and lasted until our present time. The era of America being a superpower began in the very early nineties (may one could use the war '91 as a mark), and ended when the financial system and financial philosphy of america broke down and it became obvious that it cannot live by its own effort anymore, something that is also illustrated by the stellar debts and the fact that america cannot feed it's hunger for consummation by its own production and needs to import goods worth 700 billion dollar more than it does export in return.

as the essay said, on the one hand the increasing loss of respect for america is obvious, on the other hand, as it also says, there is no reason for Schadenfreude, or gluttony. We currently see a massive shift in geostrategic tectonics, and the process of relocating and newly assessing the future balances of power not only hurts america and will leave it weaker than it was before, but will also do a lot of damage to us as well. It is in our own interest to help and assist America in coming to a peaceful rest again after the earthquake is over, and stablize it so that by that our own phase of transformation works smoother as well. That cannot mean, of course, to just accept the american model of markets again like before, and to allow ameica behzave like the one and only great hegemon . America will need to accept concessions here - finally, and not few ones. Else it is to be rejected. We have no obligation to sacrifcie our selfinterest for the interest of America.

Two things are not wanted here: retaliation and payback for past arrogance and unilateralism from the Europeans on the one hand, and fantasies of just continuing in the same way and at the point where one was interrupted as if nothing had happened from the Americans on the other hand. There will be neither an end to america (but an slow fading out of the american empire), nor will american influence just seize to exist within four years, it is a process that in the financial area very likely could last for 10-15 years, maybe even 20-25 years or so. Most obvious fields where it will be observed (and already can be observed) are the currencies and their importance (the Euro will take over the Dollar's importance) , the importance of Wall Street and London as a financial centre, the fading willingness to support the deeply unhealthy finances of the American state, an growing rejection of american claims for dominant influence in international gremia like WB and ICF - and last but not least sooner or later the insane spendings on the military will need to see drastic cuts, corresponding to a reduction of global military capacity of the US. The current level of military size and defense spendings simply cannot be afforded with debts like these, yearly deficits like these, and such an insane import-export-disbalance which only shows that the producing economy is not strong enough anymore to prepare for war on this immense level. If you want so huge a military, you must be able to finance that all by yourself - and that is not possible for america anymore, and since quite some time. The growing debts are evidence for that. Practically all European empires had come to this point during the past 500 years: state bancruptcy due to excessive military spendings that could not be afforded anymore. There are other things that need to be given priority in the coming years and decades.

So, the Us will remain to be there. But it's global dominance is to fade slowly from now on, and it will need to learn a modesty that it is not really used to. And having seen how power was abused once the neutralising rival, the USSR, was gone, and a mixture of madness and arrogance led to the policies we have seen especially in the Bush years and the program by the socalled Neocons, I cannot really regret that, although I see a more dangerous future ahead with a multipolar world competing for fading key ressources. Maybe the golden age for the past half of a century - is to come to an end. I don't know, but I could imagine that it could be.

[baggygreen]

My fear is that without a hegemon, and with several smaller but significant states vying for resources, as sky said, we're in for a very rough ride over the next century.:down:

[Frame57]

In reality the economic situation is a good thing. First it will cause us to have a corrected market and will smoke out the corruption in the democratic controlled finance committee. Within a decade America rose from the great depression to be the fiery sword that ended WW2. Americans sacrificed to make that happen and if called upon to do so again to right herself then it is a good and needful thing. It has and always be challenges that make America a great county.

[August]

My bet is that by the end of the century Europe will go back to warring amongst itself and the Euro will be rendered worthless.

[Frame57]

I am not sure how and why many european countries are allowing the influx of muslims. France, England and the Balkans are having problems with this. So, as went Kosovo, so will other countries experience this in the future and I think that we be a problem for them. Italy is taking great pains to not allow muslims into their country and this is obviously due to the Roman Catholics. Think about for a moment of the last import you bought that was made in England? France? etc... there is virtually no exports from the EU. Almost everything I buy has a China tag on it. They are the wave of the future economically and axiomatically militarily as well. So I agree with you but I will give it 20 years tops.

[Morts]

My bet is that by the end of the century Europe will go back to warring amongst itself and the Euro will be rendered worthless.
whatever makes you feel better...

[Frame57]

Interesting, can you tell me more about the problems we have in France with muslims ? And how does it affect our home made production of goods ? :DMany of our headlines featured street violence by muslims in France. Do you deny it there is aproblem with them integrating into your society? Probably nothing in affecting your produce. I did not dilineate the subject matter in my post. In response I was making two points. One, that the EU is not an export powerhouse. Two, the EU's has a problem with muslim migration and because their religious mind set is to conquor, and they will not honor or obey your laws and culture, you will have problems as evidenced in Kosovo of recent...

[Frame57]

Perhaps then because you have not been personally affected, you are biased. I know the BBC also brought these issues to our attention as well. Stay tuned for a mosque coming soon to a neigborhood near you, then you may remember what I have told is true. So, what is next, I suppose you will tell me that Italy is begging them to come there too?

[Konovalov]

their religious mind set is to conquor, and they will not honor or obey your laws and culture, you will have problems as evidenced in Kosovo of recent...
Yes, we all sit around the dinner table at night discussing such that you mentioned above while ignoring and dishonoring our nations laws in our daily lives. What a load of crud you speak.

[Skybird]

No major european industry has such a suicidal import-export-dysbalance as your coiuntry, Frame. I would show more self-restraint before mocking about the Eu in this regard. you country needs to import more goods than it can export, goods worth 700 billion dollars to meet it's internal consummation demands. your industry is not strong enough to support your living style, and 60% of your national income are not made by producing goods, but just by trafficking financial transactions.

That is why the banking crisis is so threatening for you. It is lifethreatening for y<ou, since making money without producing has become the major pillar of your economy.

and you know what? In the near future your country will no longer be strong enough to afford to keep the Chinese away from buying up major shares of American banks on huge scale. This with their already huge, no: biblical reserves in dollars, and them being the ones keeping alive your self-financing by selling worthless state bonds. the more they expand to africa, South america, and close relations with Europe, the less depending their production becomes on exporting to america - and endlessly subsidizing this deeply ill finance system sooner or later will see them running our of patience. Nobody wastes his money into that bottomless hole endlessly, until the end of time. at the same time, you will depend more and more on them, and more or more live at their mercy and good will.

War over Taiwan? the US probably already could economically and financially not afford that, and i am absolutely sure in the near future it cannot afford that for sure. There will not be a war over Taiwan with american participation.

Ringing an alarm bell, maybe? Spending more than one can afford, is a bitch, really. :lol: It may take some time before you feel the sting from it, but feeling it you always must, sooner or later.

muslims and europe, I think I must not say anything on that anymore, my views are known, however, your remark on Italy and catholizim probably is not correct. Keep in mind that berlusconi is a.) a populist, and b.) tends towards the far right. I have no doubt that he would open doors and windows for Islam if only he and his empire can benefit from that, so catholizism probably has little to do with it (after all it is the catholic church who initiated the islamic surge into Europe and encouraged it in the early and mid-60s). It simply is pure elemental xenophobia that he services in order to raise shorttermed political support from the crowds. Italy is goal for many illegally entering africans who land more dead than alive on italian shores and every year try by the hundreds of boats to reach italian soil. residents at the coats seeing their places flooded with foreigners, more and more camps and the social tensions and crime probelosm all this brings, must be without doubt a bit weary of it. It is feelings like this that berlusoni instrumentalises.

BTW, I have not been aware of any new level of anti-Islamism in Italy. It would be dsirable, there and in all europe, but I do not see a huge change in the trend of the past years. In Germany, an opposition is foriming up, but it remaisn to be small, tame, and gets underminded by Neonazis and extreme rights - and in germany, this guarantees its failure probably better than any muslim effort against them.

[SUBMAN1]

Yawn to this thread.

America has been dying for 50 years according o Europe. We are still here. Must be REALLLL SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOWW! :smug:

-S

[Hylander_1314]

I think the good old US of A should take this approach myself.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/williams.asp

[Frame57]

their religious mind set is to conquor, and they will not honor or obey your laws and culture, you will have problems as evidenced in Kosovo of recent...
Yes, we all sit around the dinner table at night discussing such that you mentioned above while ignoring and dishonoring our nations laws in our daily lives. What a load of crud you speak.You are the frog that will boil because you do not know that the water is slowly rising. Genius! We had this problem with illegals here and now it is a huge problem economically to where emergency rooms have to close because they do not pay their bills. So long as comfort zone has not yet been tampered with you deny the impending obvious, then will cry out when it hits the fan. Because I have my finger on the pulse of what is going on, to have a few naysayers who are ignorant means nothing to me. History will state the facts but all too often that is too late for those who want to keep their Countries culture and borders and language intact.

[Frame57]

Matter of fact, I lived my first 16 years in what the medias call "ghetto" in the suburbs of Paris. I went at school with people of all origins, black Africans, Arabs from north africa, mostly Algeria and Morocco, Turks, Vietnamese and of course Frenchs. Every family living there wanted to move the hell out, not because of some sort of "muslim threat" but because it was a sh!t place to live in, and yeah there was violence and poverty. Is that because of islam or because these suburbs and the people living there are considered the butt of the country ? My parents had a good job so after 16 years they could afford to move elsewhere, but most people living in these ugly suburbs built in the 60's to "park" foreign workers just can't afford to move.

Then I lived for four years with my father in a ~90% muslim part of Paris, and there was indeed a mosque at the corner of the street. There was far more muslims here than in my old suburb, but they had an overall far better quality of life, and there was no violence nor will to "get the hell out". My father still happily lives there 6 months a year. Myself I never had the slightest problem while living there, on the contrary. The funniest part is that a right wing paper once made up an article on that mosque : http://www.lepoint.fr/actualites-monde/la-france-terre-de-djihad/924/0/22900
Man, I lived 50 metres from that mosque, each friday at 2pm there was indeed some odd 50 guys praying outside in the middle of the street. What the article doesn't say is that they did so because the mosque is the only mosque in that area and is way too small. Besides that street is a tiny side street, there's no trafic there, these people simple didn't bother anyone. The article is full of fearmongering lies that the average old fashioned French racist loves so much. Another article spoke of the street as "islamist territory". I was shocked when I red it. So who's biased again ?

"Islamism" as they say, like the racist right and other extremist ideologies, tends to rise in areas where poverty is also on the rise or where the country gave up, like these days in our overpopulated prisons.

edit : if you're interested and have google earth, go to " 48°52'4.51"N - 2°22'37.88"E", there's a pic of the mosque. Obviously the cute teen girls walking by without hijab whatsoever have been photoshoped afterwards :D
And if you move some 300m north west, you'll find a church (way bigger than the mosque). That's France as I like it. :up:You seem to won over by them. Be a good chap and give them your paycheck. Perhaps the next time I dine at a french resteruant, I will be served bean curd on pita bread...:o

[SteamWake]

Quite long, but very realistically summerizing the mood as I believe I perceive it from media all around:

No need to say any more.

[AVGWarhawk]

Quite long, but very realistically summerizing the mood as I believe I perceive it from media all around:
No need to say any more.

Ouch, spank me :o

[mrbeast]

I am not sure how and why many european countries are allowing the influx of muslims. France, England and the Balkans are having problems with this. So, as went Kosovo, so will other countries experience this in the future and I think that we be a problem for them. Italy is taking great pains to not allow muslims into their country and this is obviously due to the Roman Catholics. Think about for a moment of the last import you bought that was made in England? France? etc... there is virtually no exports from the EU. Almost everything I buy has a China tag on it. They are the wave of the future economically and axiomatically militarily as well. So I agree with you but I will give it 20 years tops.

Maybe you didn't see this:


Market size. Imports are a good indicator of the size of a national market as well as the flows of merchandises servicing the needs of an economy. The United States, Germany, China and Japan are the world's largest importers and consequently the world's largest economies. Germany has recently become the world’s largest exporter, supplementing the traditional position held by United States over the last 50 years. The integration of China to the global economy has been accompanied by a growing level of participation to trade both in absolute and relative terms, improving the rank of China from the 7th largest exporter in 2000 and to the 3rd largest in 2005. China has recently surpassed Japan both in the total value of its imports and exports.
Trade imbalances. Some countries, notably the United States and the United Kingdom, have significant trade deficits which are reflected in their balance of payments.....

http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch5en/conc5en/leadingtraders.html

The EU exports nothing does it?

[Kipparikalle]

This shall begin the new era

A new era... for FINLAND!

We will become the next superpower of the Earth!

[Dowly]

This shall begin the new era

A new era... for FINLAND!

We will become the next superpower of the Earth!


A superpower, who has most of it's ppl on the brink of alcoholism? That doesnt sound very good. :rotfl:

[Foxtrot]

This shall begin the new era

A new era... for FINLAND!

We will become the next superpower of the Earth!

Are you drinking in broad daylight?
Shall I tell Sweds about your "plans"? :shifty: :D

[Hitman]

All Empires rise, then decline and finally dissapear, history teaches that pretty well.

The thing is, Empires last every day less....

Agypt 3000 years, Rome nearly 1000 years, Spain 500 years, Britain 300 years and now the USA ... ? :hmm:

But sure as hell, their empire will end, meaning their hegemony will dissapear -not of course their state & nation-

Who will be next?

My guess is that future empires will be those with huge energy resources AND weapons to defend them. Saudi Arabia does not fall into that category -no weapons- and China also doesn't -no resources-

Is it the time again for Russia? :)

[Skybird]

All Empires rise, then decline and finally dissapear, history teaches that pretty well.

The thing is, Empires last every day less....

Agypt 3000 years, Rome nearly 1000 years, Spain 500 years, Britain 300 years and now the USA ... ? :hmm:

But sure as hell, their empire will end, meaning their hegemony will dissapear -not of course their state & nation-

Who will be next?

My guess is that future empires will be those with huge energy resources AND weapons to defend them. Saudi Arabia does not fall into that category -no weapons- and China also doesn't -no resources-

Is it the time again for Russia? :)
Both china and Saudi arabia are buying themsleves into wetsern industries and banks on large scale, to compensate for their strategic deficits. and both are extremely successful with doing so. to think the Saudis will have gone when their oil has come to an end, would be a very huge mistake. they will take their income directly from our pockets, and will not even need to ask. the Netherlands also had no huge armies and armadas, but nevertheless became a "trader empire" as well, and where extremely powerful for some time. so wheere the Portuguese and Spanish as well, who also in theory lacked the numerical power to rasie the huge emoires that they nevertheless cintrolled and exploited. total occupation of all territory is not necessary. control of key locations works well enough, and controlling patterns of traffic, trade and finances. And it could beat military power.

[Hitman]

Yes I agree with that but only as long as the legal order is respected. If international and state laws are no longer respected, then it's the strongest who wins. I'm thinking about examples like Bolivia or Venezuela nationalizing their resources: No matter how many legal rights foreign companies had there, they were wiped away with a legal modification.

China and specially Arabia will only be able to control their aquired finantial control position as long as the controlled states want to follow the rules. Yet if they brake them, things may vary a lot and only the real exercise of force through military action can prevail.

[DeepIron]

Frankly, if we "declined" into "just another bunch of people living on the planet" status, I'd welcome it. Let some other nation worry about things for awhile and pay attention to problems at home for a change... Yes, yes... a simplistic point of view in an otherwise complex and screwed up world i know...

[Frame57]

America was and never will be an "empire". We do not own nor occupy the countries we battled in WW2. We have been allies with great Britain even though sought Independance from them. After WWI we went through the great depression to only arise stronger than before. This is but a bump in the road and will not stymy the strength of this great nation.

[Skybird]

America was and never will be an "empire". We do not own nor occupy the countries we battled in WW2. We have been allies with great Britain even though sought Independance from them. After WWI we went through the great depression to only arise stronger than before. This is but a bump in the road and will not stymy the strength of this great nation.
Sorry, but your use of the term empire seem to be a very narrow one, but the term as it is used to describe various constellations in history, beyond doubt qualifies america for being an empire. Note that the term includes dominat positions of control in the world of trade, traffic, finance, cultural dominance, legal values. An empire is not only about invading places, occupy territories with armies, and shooting at things that wear the wrong colours. An empire does not limit itself to the meaning and form of the european colonialism. And empires also only survived for longer times if they included these components - military force alone only gave them a certain time - and not more.

there are also many parallels between America and various empires, namely rome, regarding the way in which their econmies developed, changed and collapsed, and how they organised the flow of goods and items inside the empire according to the desired centralisation of traffic directions of goods and items, the systems of traffic, and flow patterns of wealth and goods made the city of rome, and the italian peninsula, their goal. the parallels here to america, are stunning, and educating.

If I label the US an empire, I do not necessarily always mean it as an offense, or a brandmarking. I just use a wider historial understanding of the term.

It's a pity that this book has not been translated, it is a top prime lecture on the term and it's historic realities:

http://www.amazon.de/Imperien-Logik-Weltherrschaft-Vereinigten-Staaten/dp/3871345091/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222981745&sr=8-2

[Rockstar]

Nice to see our German friend once more forecasting the end of America.

Anything Der Spiegel says, eh Skybird?


:arrgh!:

lol I remember when he was predicting the fall of Tony Blair. Doomed he was, gonna get booted out two days after the war started, Brits were gonna rise up! noway he could hold on as prime minister. Yep Skybird can certainly call'em, Over here in the colonies I'm going on as usual living a peacable life clinging to my guns and credit cards. Which by the way they just increased my credit from 10,000 to 12,000.

He's just another windbag.

[Frame57]

Let me try this again, my last rebuttal did not stick. Webster defintion of an Empire, "A politcal unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations, and ruled by a single supreme authority."

This fits perfectly the Greek, Roman and British empire rule. You cannot change definition to suit personal ideaogogy, then language itself become moot.

[CCIP]

Let me try this again, my last rebuttal did not stick. Webster defintion of an Empire, "A politcal unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations, and ruled by a single supreme authority."

This fits perfectly the Greek, Roman and British empire rule. You cannot change definition to suit personal ideaogogy, then language itself become moot.

Actually, by that definition, the US was an empire from its beginning :hmm:

[August]

Let me try this again, my last rebuttal did not stick. Webster defintion of an Empire, "A politcal unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations, and ruled by a single supreme authority."

This fits perfectly the Greek, Roman and British empire rule. You cannot change definition to suit personal ideaogogy, then language itself become moot.
Actually, by that definition, the US was an empire from its beginning :hmm:

If so then so would Canada...

[CCIP]

Let me try this again, my last rebuttal did not stick. Webster defintion of an Empire, "A politcal unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations, and ruled by a single supreme authority."

This fits perfectly the Greek, Roman and British empire rule. You cannot change definition to suit personal ideaogogy, then language itself become moot.
Actually, by that definition, the US was an empire from its beginning :hmm:
If so then so would Canada...

Indeed. Then perhaps that's not such a good definition?

[August]

Let me try this again, my last rebuttal did not stick. Webster defintion of an Empire, "A politcal unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations, and ruled by a single supreme authority."

This fits perfectly the Greek, Roman and British empire rule. You cannot change definition to suit personal ideaogogy, then language itself become moot.
Actually, by that definition, the US was an empire from its beginning :hmm:
If so then so would Canada...
Indeed. Then perhaps that's not such a good definition?

Yeah this alone:

"A politcal unit having an extensive territory" is kind of broad.

[baggygreen]

Let me try this again, my last rebuttal did not stick. Webster defintion of an Empire, "A politcal unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations, and ruled by a single supreme authority."

This fits perfectly the Greek, Roman and British empire rule. You cannot change definition to suit personal ideaogogy, then language itself become moot.
Actually, by that definition, the US was an empire from its beginning :hmm:

If so then so would Canada...

blame Canada!!!!:lol:

Oz would also come under that definition... it really is a little too broad

[UnderseaLcpl]

Actually I kind of like the sound of "The American Empire"

As long as we stick to free economic principles and dispose of our top-heavy state, we could be an economic empire without peer in a few decades. :D

[Frame57]

Let me try this again, my last rebuttal did not stick. Webster defintion of an Empire, "A politcal unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations, and ruled by a single supreme authority."

This fits perfectly the Greek, Roman and British empire rule. You cannot change definition to suit personal ideaogogy, then language itself become moot.

Actually, by that definition, the US was an empire from its beginning :hmm:Name the territories or nations we ruled over? If you please...:D

[CCIP]

Let me try this again, my last rebuttal did not stick. Webster defintion of an Empire, "A politcal unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations, and ruled by a single supreme authority."

This fits perfectly the Greek, Roman and British empire rule. You cannot change definition to suit personal ideaogogy, then language itself become moot.
Actually, by that definition, the US was an empire from its beginning :hmm:Name the territories or nations we ruled over? If you please...:D
1) The collection of different colonies/states

2) American Indian nations

[mrbeast]

Let me try this again, my last rebuttal did not stick. Webster defintion of an Empire, "A politcal unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations, and ruled by a single supreme authority."

This fits perfectly the Greek, Roman and British empire rule. You cannot change definition to suit personal ideaogogy, then language itself become moot.

Actually, by that definition, the US was an empire from its beginning :hmm:Name the territories or nations we ruled over? If you please...:D

Philipines, Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico all US colonial possession's

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3892/350px10kmilesjb3.jpg

[Kipparikalle]

I still think we finns should rule the world.

It would be the world of PEACE! (and beer)
We would be spacetravelling in no time!

We are the true aryans! Germans didn't wan't to believe this, so they ignored this whole information totally. But look who prevailed!


WE ARE THE GOD'S TRUE CHILDREN!
WE SHALL CONQUER THE WORLD!

[Skybird]

"Rule by a single supreme authority".

Hm. All proxy tyrannies brought into power and supported by Washington. All nations depending on falling into the global rule of trade and finance mechanisms enforced by institutions fou7nded and/or dominated by Washington.
All nations where population live by the rules of a way of life formed and dominated by the american way of life and ameircan modern pop-culture (like Roman citizenship was really cool at it's time, and was desirable for many, due to legal benefits). NATO: since half a century totally dominated and depending on Washington.

As I already said, the historical meaning and defintion of an empire leads far beyond just obvious military occupation. that is far too short-sigthed. But it may be opportunistic to see it like that, if one wants to evade the characterisation of the US as an empire for whatever a reason.

Also, an empire is under pressure regarding what it can alloow to let happen, and what not, if it wants to keep its realm together. there is a centre, and there is a periphery, there is no solid border in form of a line, but a zone at the outer peripohery where the empires influence wanes, and foreign influence fades in. Considering the challenges an empire can afford to tolerate, and what not, if comparing the Us policy with that of the British, the Romans, there are also stunning ammounts of parallels.

Even IF - in a thought experiment - America would not be described as an empire - it still shows the behavior of empires then, and implements the policies and tools of empire, the whole range, from central control of trade flows over enforcing the centre's rules of finances, to military intervention.

[DeepIron]

Personally, I like the "Empire of Oz" concept myself... It's already "green"... ;)

[Frame57]

Almost every other economic power house has their own stock markets and currency. The dollar has been lower in value than most all other currencies for a long time. How is it you see this myth that America has controlled the worlds economies. It has a big impact, but control to the extent you erroneously label America as an empire. Ridiculous indeed! Right that is why we owe so much monet to other nations. Someone needs an economics 101 course. Come to America Skybird and I will enroll you in a nice community college.

[Tchocky]

Good luck finding anything regarding what is or is not an empire in Economics 101.

The current crisis is an interesting example of interlinked market strategies. US and UK have pursued deregulation of financial instruments, making it easier for companies to trade debt and debt insurance. The result of this is higher profits from fast trading, and increased interlinking of countries. This is why the UK and US are following broadly similiar paths, although the US is suffering more severely.
The central European economies didn't follow this path, which is why Spanish banks like Santander are in a position to buy up failing institutions like Bradford & Bingley.
Curiously, it was a French bank that "broke" this mess, BNP Paribas.

[Konovalov]

This is why the UK and US are following broadly similiar paths, although the US is suffering more severely. Often it is talked of that Britain is 6-12 months behind the US regarding the current economic crisis.

Tchocky, What are your thoughts on the government of Irelands decision to guarantee 100% of all deposits in Irelands bank? Responsible or dangerous protectionist move with possible unintended damaging consequences for Europe?

[Tchocky]

Mixed feelings, honestly.

On one hand, it puts confidence back into the Irish system, which is good. The corollary is that it undermines investor confidence in every other European economy, and leads to massive savings withdrawals from European banks at the precise moment when banks need as much liquidity as possible.

So much of the national wealth is tied up in housing that no bank was going to be allowed to fail. So this step isn't so brave. Rather disruptive and damaging, I think.
It's a article of economic faith that the state makes a bad banker, so the end result of this, should the guarantee need to be underwritten, would be a huge and inefficient banking sector.

Not that that could happen - the value of all accounts in the country is twice our GDP. So it's a fall-on-sword moment.

I don't know how the Government expect to pay for this.

I'm supposed to feel reassured that my account is safe - I was reassured already. This does nothing but create trouble for other banks and countries.

That said, if the ideal move here is for all EU countries to do the same, there's no way that all countries could reach consensus in time. This kind of confidence restoration needs to be done quickly. More quickly than 27 governments can do it.

So, I think we're overall worse off, but it wasn't an inherently bad idea.

[Konovalov]

I tend to agree with what you have said above.

I just hope that this doesn't set off a chain reaction from other Euro nations doing a similar thing.

The way things are going I may have to move forward plans of moving back to Australia with my English wife.

[Skybird]

Almost every other economic power house has their own stock markets and currency. The dollar has been lower in value than most all other currencies for a long time. How is it you see this myth that America has controlled the worlds economies. It has a big impact, but control to the extent you erroneously label America as an empire. Ridiculous indeed! Right that is why we owe so much monet to other nations. Someone needs an economics 101 course. Come to America Skybird and I will enroll you in a nice community college.

I assume they just woke you up from a 1-decade-minimum hibernation sleep, since oyu have missed so many things, obviously!? Now you are awake again and see the sun setting, so to speak - and conclude from that that it never has been noon.

[Frame57]

Almost every other economic power house has their own stock markets and currency. The dollar has been lower in value than most all other currencies for a long time. How is it you see this myth that America has controlled the worlds economies. It has a big impact, but control to the extent you erroneously label America as an empire. Ridiculous indeed! Right that is why we owe so much monet to other nations. Someone needs an economics 101 course. Come to America Skybird and I will enroll you in a nice community college.

I assume they just woke you up from a 1-decade-minimum hibernation sleep, since oyu have missed so many things, obviously!? Now you are awake again and see the sun setting, so to speak - and conclude from that that it never has been noon.Your reply is forcing me to drink heavily today....:damn:

[Frame57]

The WTO and ITO are also in this mix which the "American Empire" does not control, but rather has heavy european ifluence and UN influence. There is where your problem remains.