RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism?

RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/10/2014 3:22:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: government doesn't positively produce money (taxation is negative production because it takes it away from consumers), But government spends it elsewhere and circulates the money to other potential consumers. Taxation is a negative production when the federal budget is in deficit or when money is borrowed from the Social Security Account and never returned. Otherwise, government provides a service to citizens in many ways and those service have to be paid for. Don't you think? I know there are services that government does provide, and that those services need to be paid for. There's an ideological divide about which services are those the Federal government should provide. It's never about paying for services provided, it's about what services should provided. Government redistribution is negative production because it's taking it out of the hands of consumers. The whole idea of a government spending multiplier ignores the reduction in spending that takes place by taking that $ out of the hands of the economy in the first place. If taking $1 in taxes and spending it is supposed to add $1.50 to the economy, what would that $1 have done to the economy if it was spent by the consumer rather than taxed away in the first place? That's a very convenient "oversight" pretty much every politician will use to support his/her pet project. And, conveniently, it's pretty much always wrong.

DomKen -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/10/2014 3:23:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery International shipping would be greatly reduced, much more expensive, you'd pay more for nearly everything, and the economy would be slower, with fewer jobs. Why? The US Navy makes this possible. Would there truly be a slower economy with fewer jobs, though? Why would there be? With an increased cost of international shipping, wouldn't manufacturing jobs come back (or not have left in the first place)? Wouldn't that mean more people working for more money here? I agree with your initial premise that international shipping would be more expensive. I'm not sure your analysis of what that would mean, in the long run, is so accurate. If your initial premise (regarding international shipping costs) is correct, is that truly a bad thing? Our own economy was built on exporting our industrial goods. Also without American intervention Japan would not have been defeated, and possibly Italy and Germany. We would not be able to sell our goods to most of the world.

Musicmystery -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/10/2014 3:23:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Why would fewer people buy more expensive goods? Law of Demand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_demand Why do business have sales? To lower their profit margin? No -- to increase their volume. People buy more when the price drops (assuming price elasticity--which is true for most goods), and vice versa.

DesideriScuri -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/10/2014 3:25:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery International shipping would be greatly reduced, much more expensive, you'd pay more for nearly everything, and the economy would be slower, with fewer jobs. Why? The US Navy makes this possible. Would there truly be a slower economy with fewer jobs, though? Why would there be? With an increased cost of international shipping, wouldn't manufacturing jobs come back (or not have left in the first place)? Wouldn't that mean more people working for more money here? I agree with your initial premise that international shipping would be more expensive. I'm not sure your analysis of what that would mean, in the long run, is so accurate. If your initial premise (regarding international shipping costs) is correct, is that truly a bad thing? Our own economy was built on exporting our industrial goods. Also without American intervention Japan would not have been defeated, and possibly Italy and Germany. We would not be able to sell our goods to most of the world. That's if we hadn't ever gone all imperial. The question most are addressing considers a future President making a future decision to pull the military back home and stop being World Cop.

Musicmystery -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/10/2014 3:28:07 PM)
Nonetheless, it would come with economic consequences. We're a globe. It's pretty late to put that back in the bottle. The Mongols tried it, and gradually turned an Empire that controlled half the globe into an isolated mess it wouldn't recover from until the mid 20th century.

DesideriScuri -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/10/2014 3:31:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Nonetheless, it would come with economic consequences. We're a globe. It's pretty late to put that back in the bottle. The Mongols tried it, and gradually turned an Empire that controlled half the globe into an isolated mess it wouldn't recover from until the mid 20th century. It's not too late to put it back in the bottle. It can start damn near overnight. Pull the troops out of foreign countries. Bring them back home. Stop playing World Cop. Stop intervening in almost every dust up that occurs. Bam. Bottle starting to fill back up, bro.

cloudboy -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/10/2014 3:31:10 PM)
Not trying to pick a fight, but your answer was vague and I asked for clarification. "International shipping would be greatly reduced, much more expensive, you'd pay more for nearly everything, and the economy would be slower, with fewer jobs. Why? The US Navy makes this possible." Your answer here leaps straight to a conclusion, and I just don't understand the reasoning behind it. The US is not the only civilized, advanced nation with a Navy, and the majority of our interventions have been misbegotten. I would not classify WWII as an intervention --- in that case direct allies of the US were invaded and we moved to defend them. Interventions are more about the US inserting itself in the affairs and conflicts of other nations. For instance the first Gulf War -- not an intervention -- we moved to defend Kuwait and acted with widespread international support. Afghanistan: To me this was part intervention and part invasion -- and it was also self defense -- because actors there directly attacked the USA. Staying in Afghanistan for over a decade probably crosses the line into an occupation -- which is much more significant than an intervention. IRAQ WAR: PURE INTERVENTION based on Bush ADM lies.

Musicmystery -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/10/2014 3:32:59 PM)
I can't imagine what you're talking about. You brought in a list of conflicts that had nothing to do with my post, and now you want "clarification." What's your point of confusion? It's a straight-forward statement of fact.

cloudboy -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/10/2014 3:45:09 PM)
(1) What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? ------ (2) International shipping would be greatly reduced, much more expensive, you'd pay more for nearly everything, and the economy would be slower, with fewer jobs. Why? The US Navy makes this possible. ------- (3) I can't imagine what you're talking about. You brought in a list of conflicts that had nothing to do with my post, and now you want "clarification." What's your point of confusion? It's a straight-forward statement of fact. ------------------------------------------------------- The US could do a lot less intervening and it would not affect international shipping. The US could do a lot less intervening and it would not affect the cost of goods in international trade. The US could do a lot less intervening and the world economy might actually be in better shape -- especially in IRAN an Latin Americ and the USA itself. The opportunity cost of the IRAQ war is $ One Trillion Dollars. That money would have been better invested in the USA. The US is not the only civilized nation with a Navy. Slave labor and environmental degradation in China -- provides us cheaper goods than does our Military Might. You did not back up your conclusion with any reasoning or examples. One could cite examples that might support your point, and I cited examples that counter your point.

Musicmystery -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/10/2014 3:54:12 PM)
And none of that is what I said. What I did say is in my post. I reasoned it just fine--everyone else got it, including Thomson, who doesn't believe there's piracy without patrols in the shipping lanes. The US isn't the only navy, but it is the de facto world seas patrol. It's what makes shipping those Chinese goods here. This isn't either/or. Our good to them too -- and not just China; after Canada and Mexico, the EU is our largest market. That's all pretty straight forward. I can't imagine what line of reasoning you need to understand. Your examples are on an entirely different point, not a counter-argument. That's why you're confused -- you're talking about something other than the point I made. Now, on your separate point -- you've listed conflicts that sure, I'd rather we hadn't gotten into, to say the least. But if folks think we can just close the borders, sit home, and watch the magic peace fairies work their wonders, you're taking a simplistic and unrealistic view of the reality in which we live.

Musicmystery -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/10/2014 3:57:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Nonetheless, it would come with economic consequences. We're a globe. It's pretty late to put that back in the bottle. The Mongols tried it, and gradually turned an Empire that controlled half the globe into an isolated mess it wouldn't recover from until the mid 20th century. It's not too late to put it back in the bottle. It can start damn near overnight. Pull the troops out of foreign countries. Bring them back home. Stop playing World Cop. Stop intervening in almost every dust up that occurs. Bam. Bottle starting to fill back up, bro. I've already explained why that's unrealistic. It's been unrealistic for over a century. You can ignore it if you like, but simplistic though you'd like reality to be, it isn't.

DomKen -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/10/2014 4:07:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery International shipping would be greatly reduced, much more expensive, you'd pay more for nearly everything, and the economy would be slower, with fewer jobs. Why? The US Navy makes this possible. Would there truly be a slower economy with fewer jobs, though? Why would there be? With an increased cost of international shipping, wouldn't manufacturing jobs come back (or not have left in the first place)? Wouldn't that mean more people working for more money here? I agree with your initial premise that international shipping would be more expensive. I'm not sure your analysis of what that would mean, in the long run, is so accurate. If your initial premise (regarding international shipping costs) is correct, is that truly a bad thing? Our own economy was built on exporting our industrial goods. Also without American intervention Japan would not have been defeated, and possibly Italy and Germany. We would not be able to sell our goods to most of the world. That's if we hadn't ever gone all imperial. The question most are addressing considers a future President making a future decision to pull the military back home and stop being World Cop. It's not that simple. Consider for instance our present dependence on foreign oil.

MrRodgers -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/10/2014 4:17:16 PM)
Well forget it. World tranquility (peace) would cost an estimated 50 million and by some...as many as 100 million jobs and trillion$ in profits, maybe more. The world depends upon conflict and the threat of it and wars for [its] economy to just slither along let alone thrive. To paraphrase a hedge fund retiree...there is no happy ending, we're here now just trying to make some money.

MrRodgers -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/10/2014 4:18:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery International shipping would be greatly reduced, much more expensive, you'd pay more for nearly everything, and the economy would be slower, with fewer jobs. Why? The US Navy makes this possible. Would there truly be a slower economy with fewer jobs, though? Why would there be? With an increased cost of international shipping, wouldn't manufacturing jobs come back (or not have left in the first place)? Wouldn't that mean more people working for more money here? I agree with your initial premise that international shipping would be more expensive. I'm not sure your analysis of what that would mean, in the long run, is so accurate. If your initial premise (regarding international shipping costs) is correct, is that truly a bad thing? Our own economy was built on exporting our industrial goods. Also without American intervention Japan would not have been defeated, and possibly Italy and Germany. We would not be able to sell our goods to most of the world. That's if we hadn't ever gone all imperial. The question most are addressing considers a future President making a future decision to pull the military back home and stop being World Cop. It's not that simple. Consider for instance our present dependence on foreign oil. Mexican and Canadian ?

Musicmystery -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/10/2014 4:20:24 PM)
Oil isn't always interchangeable -- there are different qualities to oil, and different amounts of refining and hence purposes. The Alberta tar sands, for example, is especially dirty oil

thompsonx -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/10/2014 5:03:55 PM)
Our own economy was built on exporting our industrial goods. Also without American intervention Japan would not have been defeated, and possibly Italy and Germany. The u.s. had virtually nothing to do with the defeat of japan,germany or italy.

thompsonx -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/10/2014 5:07:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery International shipping would be greatly reduced, much more expensive, you'd pay more for nearly everything, and the economy would be slower, with fewer jobs. Why? The US Navy makes this possible. The false assumption here is that piracy would immediately be rampant. No, the accurate reality is that piracy existed beforehand, Before what hand? Tell us when international piracy was a problem and when the u.s. navy did fuck all about it? and that shipping today, with the exception of a few regions, proceeds uninhibited. Not because of the u.s. navy.

MrRodgers -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/10/2014 5:08:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Our own economy was built on exporting our industrial goods. Also without American intervention Japan would not have been defeated, and possibly Italy and Germany. The u.s. had virtually nothing to do with the defeat of japan,germany or italy. You're going to have to explain that one. If the US had virtually nothing to do with those defeats...what caused them ?

thompsonx -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/10/2014 5:09:16 PM)
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery The Mongols tried it, and gradually turned an Empire that controlled half the globe into an isolated mess it wouldn't recover from until the mid 20th century. Any validation for this moronic tripe?

thompsonx -> RE: What would the world be like without U.S. interventionism? (5/10/2014 5:13:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Our own economy was built on exporting our industrial goods. Also without American intervention Japan would not have been defeated, and possibly Italy and Germany. The u.s. had virtually nothing to do with the defeat of japan,germany or italy. You're going to have to explain that one. If the US had virtually nothing to do with those defeats...what caused them ? Body count works for me. How many dead or captured germans did the russians produce? How many dead or captured japanese did the russians produce?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

2.734375E-02