[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Quite some mere beliefs that you present as facts there, Lance, turning it all as to matching your classical economy theory (while there are some people who would argue that there is not a single economy theory so far that ever has worked).

I know there is no changing your mind, my friend. At least not for me. Lord knows I've tried. But what I'm positing here is not a defense of Classical Economics. It's quite the opposite, actually. I strongly disapprove of the US using it's position as a powerful buyer to game the system. That's anathema to me. I think everyone should play fair and that equivalent exchange should set the rules. Whether or not that is possible or desreable is something we disagree upon, but I know for a fact that you know that the US government uses its relative power to gain advantage over other nations in matters of trade.

That si such a beoluef that you just take as fact. But obviously whether or not spendings become expensive or not depends on how much is being spend and what is being gotten in return, and to say that it automatically never accomplishes much is - a generalisation.

Hardly. There are very few governments on this planet that can claim a surplus or any kind of positive net worth. Those that can are either (a) in possession of copious natural wealth relative to their size, or (b) free-traders with very limited state power.

Truth is, investement and purpose must be carefully balanced.

That is true, and it is something governments don't do well, and I count both your government and mine in that number.

And another assumption of yours is that you express the expectation that now and forever the whole world is depending on the US as a consumer, and that the world will continue to deliver to you even if you cannot pay with anything else anymore than just toy chips.

Not forever, but for the forseeable future. And besides that, you're missing the point. What you are effectively supposing is that some point in the future there will be no desire to sell goods to the US or invest in it, despite the huge demand. I doubt that will happen, even if people could afford to do so. The market is simply too large to abandon. There would have to be a major increase in disposable income elsewhere in the world amongst a large populace for the balance to change significantly.

We may well see a decline in the living standard if the government manages to ruin the dollar through inflation and reckless spending (and you can call me on that, that is a defense of classical economic theory), but US market share isn't about to suddenly shrink into obscurity.

That löeaves you extremely vulnerable. Because the balance already is shifting. The Chinese have announced - and started in practice - to reduc e their delivery volume to the US, and their intent to disconnect their economic interest from American demand.

And from whence do you suppose they will get their new demand? Not from Europe, certainly? The living standard there is generally lower than it is here. Not from the 2/3rds of the world that is so poor it can't even afford to feed itself? They won't be supplying their own demand unless the Communist Party expands SEZ policy or steps down, and I don't see that happening anytime soon. To whom will they sell their products?

They are patiently preparing to take over the role for the globally dominant currency.

I hope they have a lot of patience, then.

The OPEC so far did not acchieve unity in their own plan to disconnect the oil sales from the follar, but once the oil become thin in avialability, and their own fates and incomes threatened, they qwill skip the dollar faster than you can say "Holdit".

Actually, the opposite is true. They'll sell it to those that are willing to pay the most, and they'll support the currency used by the same. Americans may end up paying more dollars for a gallon of gas, and it may take up a larger portion of their income, but they have the income to spare. Most other nations don't.

For Europeans, the Asian markets become more and more important, namely China. Already today, if you take into account that the Chinese currency is artifically undervalued and thus you calculate compensation for that - not the US but China then is the globe's leading and biggest economy.

Sure, if you take that into account it would be true, but the Chinese government doesn't, and neither does anyone else. I have no doubt that their political system will eventually be replaced, but it will take quite a while, and there will be plenty of time to respond before it happens. Or at least, that's what the policymakers seem to think. I'd rather that we addressed the problem now by enacting legislation and tax reforms that make the US an ideal spot for every company on the globe to at least have an office, if not a headquarters, but my opinion is not a mainstream one. There are far too many who see business as a source from which to siphon money, rather than an engine which must be carefully kept free of contaminants. Too many that see the state as a source of guaranteed income, or a protection for business when it has no right or reason to do any such thing. But I am again venturing into defense of classical economic theory.

Your own country has caused at least two major crisis of world economy in the recent three years, and preparing the third one is alredy under way.

I hate to deconstruct quotes too much because it is akin to attacking one point at a time rather than focusing on the cogency of the issue, but I have to stop you here.

Think about what you just said. The US has caused two major crises in the world economy in the span of three years. That's not even including the other crises we've caused over the past three decades. This is the point I'm trying to make. The US is a huge market. You can disagree with my take on economic theory if you wish, but it doesn't change the fact that the US buys and produces a great deal. One way or the other, the US is a huge part of the world economy, and that's not something that any other country, including mine, is about to overlook.

Again, I don't agree with taking advantage of this potency, but there it is. I'd think you'd be more inclined to agree with my views on the free market given how obvious it is that nations obviously realize this and try to use it to their advantage. For someone who doesn't believe in a Christian God, you sure seem to think that there are a lot of saints in this world.

If you think we foriegner nations have iunlimite dpatience with you becaue you are unable to launch dratsric structural feforms in your country and are unwilling and/or unable to ever cut your spending frenzies and to start paying back your debts, than you are naive.

I think nothing of the sort. Nobody is going to have unlimited patience with a country if it doesn't pay back its debts. If there is any nation in the world that can claim such beneficience, it's this one, which was more than ready to forgive the debts incurred by warring European nations in not one but two devestating worldwide conflicts, and then incur additional expenses for which were not repaid by protecting you from the the Soviet juggernaut.

I realize that we did so for our own reasons, and I don't agree with the decision to ally with a monster like Stalin, but I would ask that you not question our motivations, even though our methods were questionable.

But what I see here is not a citizen of a country that is upset at current US economic policy because it is detrimental. What I see is a person who thinks things should be done differently. I see a person whose philosophical views are getting in the way of his better judgement.

China already has started to reduce the importance you have for its economy.

Their increasing exports to this nation and their considerable efforts to lobby for further increased exports say otherwise. Shall I provide a link tom the DOT?

You make a classical and often made mistake there, Lance, a historical one. It is about the structural dynamic of empire'S inner nature. Almost all empires, including the American one (I use the term fact-oriented, not attaching any moral judgement to it), had an inner core or centre of power, and a periphery were its power and influence slowly vained the more away you were from the core.

I think you're attaching more complexity to the subject than is required to describe it. And here I though you Germans were efficient I appreciate the sentiment that you attach no moral judgement, however.

Power breeds complacency. I know this. Also, trying to impose ideals upon another culture inevitably results in tension. I know this as well. What you're missing is that neither of those things are the case here. The US is in a dominant economic position because that's just the way stuff works. It's a big, very wealthy nation with a consumerist society. Whatever your philosophy is, it's irrelevant when you consider that. At the end of the day, people still want stuff and people still need to sell stuff that other people want. That's what makes the world go 'round.

I'll respond to the rest of your post soon. I hope you'll forgive me for not taking the time to respond to every point right now, I just need a break.