RE: Economic Decline of United States, Eruption of US Militarism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

meatcleaver -> RE: Economic Decline of United States, Eruption of US Militarism (2/15/2007 1:41:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Well, those are examples of decline, bacause the nation in question was lacking one of the two factors ... valid, but not exactly related to the point you were making.
 
Looking at history, most very powerful nations gained economic strength through the application of military power. Not a popular view, but a reasonably accurate one.
 


Not at all accurate. One has to be able to afford a military and for that one needs a successful economy. The British never had a national army when the British empire was being created, private companies and merchant adventurers effectively hired mercenaries or used politics and diplomacy to persuade local leaders that they were best to do buisness with. One of the reasons for the rise of the British Empire was because British merchants went to look for new markets because the French did their best to stop Britain trading with continental Europe. It wasn't a State enterprise and there was no State army projecting its power in the beginning. It was when the empire was at its height that the British State effectively nationalised the empire to stop private greed and corruption, from then on it was only a matter of time before its decline because effective government costs. The French tried to prolong their empire through military power and failed miserably because militarism is such a drain on resources. The USSR tried to sustain its empire with military power but again, the military was a huge drain on its resources. Though it is doubtful whether they would have had an empire beyond greater Russia without WWII but to Russia, eastern Europe was seen as a buffer zone rather than a traditional empire that could be exploited for wealth. Still, it illustrates the drain of militarism. Rome succeeded because with each conquest there was more than enough wealth to sustain the necessary military as well has increase the wealth of the imperial economy. When Rome did fall it couldn't afford to pay its army, though the dynamics of expansionism in the first century BC is different than today. There was vast territories that had yet to be exploited and controled.

Iraq is a drain on the US but maybe it won't be if the US gets cheap oil from the enterprise. Iran will certainly be a big drain on the US. It isn't just that these wars cost, it is also that they create a negative view of the US around the world and as American businessmen have pointed out, people around the world are associating American products and culture with American politics, something that hasn't happened before. It matters little how many aircraft carriers the US has if no one is buying American products and services and it probably won't be that long before there will be alternatives to most of what America produces. That is the idiocy of Bush's militaristic foreign policies.



KenDckey -> RE: Economic Decline of United States, Eruption of US Militarism (2/15/2007 2:07:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

The book American Theocracy ties in US militarism, Christian Fundamentalism and the oil economy's decline.. it is an interesting read if you are interested in these things.


I personally don't necessarily believe those types of books.   LOL  I once convinced about 20 people that griits were ground up six inch nuts that grew on trees (based upon the book "Dont Sit Under the Grits Tree With Any One Else But Me" by Lewis Grizzard - former columnist with the Atlanta Constitition Journal).

I do believe that the use of the military is an extension of politics.  2 examples - Clinton blew up a drug company in the Sudan and Bush took us to war - all based upon faulty intelligence.

I worked in Intelligence for a while when I was in the Army.  They draw conclusions (often wrong) based upon whatever they can find out (which is usually not enough).

To stop militarism, we have to have better intelligence to eleviate our fears.  Isolationism isn't the solution either.  Politically and economically it doesn't work.  I am not sure exactly what the whole answer is or if there is even a simple solution.



seeksfemslave -> RE: Economic Decline of United States, Eruption of US Militarism (2/15/2007 2:34:03 AM)

It amazes me that some posters appear to believe that military power is the engine of economic success. Its OK for the arms industry I suppose but ultimately what is required in todays and even yesterdays World is/was technological expertise and application.

Running around training to kill people, though probably necessary in the real World, is not a positive business plan...is it ?

I always used to laugh when I saw the slogan of, I think, the US Air Force.
Peace is our Profession.



NavyDDG54 -> RE: Economic Decline of United States, Eruption of US Militarism (2/15/2007 4:17:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

And look at Bosnia and Kosovo, there hasn't been any fighting there for years now and we STILL have Troops there!


The US is in the process or maybe it has already of  building a military base in Bosnia and its not for keeping the peace in Bosnia, that's for sure.


What orifice did you pull that one out of?



meatcleaver -> RE: Economic Decline of United States, Eruption of US Militarism (2/15/2007 4:29:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NavyDDG54

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

And look at Bosnia and Kosovo, there hasn't been any fighting there for years now and we STILL have Troops there!


The US is in the process or maybe it has already of  building a military base in Bosnia and its not for keeping the peace in Bosnia, that's for sure.


What orifice did you pull that one out of?


BBC World Service did a report on it.

It seems I'm out of date and the US is building or modifying bases in Bulgaria and Hungary instead.



FirmhandKY -> RE: Economic Decline of United States, Eruption of US Militarism (2/15/2007 5:04:30 AM)

meat,

Well, just avoiding all the off the wall BS, the percentage of GDP that the US spends on the military is still lower now, than it has been for most of it's WWII and post WWII history.

Get it?  We are spending less money now on the military, in comparison to the size of our economy, than we have on average since about .... oh ... 1941 or thereabouts.

When does the depression start?

Oh, yeah, and check out some of the latest US economy's growth and unemployment figures ... might want to take a look at the stock market, too, while you are searching ... and compare all of those figures to comparable figures of any country's in Europe (well, except maybe the Irish).

You can get back to me about the "decline" of the US economy, and the terrible effects that our "eruptions of militarism" is having on our economy ....

But I won't hold my breath.

FirmKY



meatcleaver -> RE: Economic Decline of United States, Eruption of US Militarism (2/15/2007 6:00:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Oh, yeah, and check out some of the latest US economy's growth and unemployment figures ... might want to take a look at the stock market, too, while you are searching ... and compare all of those figures to comparable figures of any country's in Europe (well, except maybe the Irish).



As somebody pointed out in another thread, if you earn $40 in the US you aren't counted as unemployed. The threshold you have to earn here before you are counted as employed in most European countries with the possible exception of Britain is way way above that threshold so I think you will find many European unemployed are better off than many American employed, apart from Britain that is.

Europeans who believe in the social model of government know that there will be some inbuilt inefficiency in the economy but believe its a price worth paying to have a more egalitarian and coherent society. The US might be the richest country in the world but it is also the most violent in the developed world and it has more of its fair share of people that are dirt poor, have no medical insurance and end up badly educated because of bad schools. Britain has follwed the American model and look at the state of it, their children are in a worse state the America's. I know many people have mocked the UN report but having lived in both Britain and the Netherlands and having a brother with children in the US, the report's conclusions seem pretty fair to me.

Justr wait until Bush gets the US tied up in Iran while China and India carries on expanding in Africa and the middle east. Iran and many African oil producers prefer to sell their oil to India and China which is probably the main reason for Bush being belligerent but no one will support a war over oil so he has to convince everyone Iran is an international threat. All sounds familiar.



caitlyn -> RE: Economic Decline of United States, Eruption of US Militarism (2/15/2007 7:14:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
Not at all accurate. One has to be able to afford a military and for that one needs a successful economy.


Is this another one of your "Royal Navy never lost a sea battle" posts?
 
You still have not answered the question. You claimed that:
 
"Countries don't achieve economic success through military action but through a dynamic economy (and luck of circumstance in many cases), they them keep it by the same dynamism."
 
I still want to know exactly what country you are talking about ... because I sure can't think of one. I can only think of three rough groups.
  • Those who had success, totally due to military conquest (Huns, Mongols, Arab Conquest, Hsung-nu, etc ...)
  • Those who built armies on credit in order to go out and have military success (Carolingians, Byzantines, Angevins, Xin Dynasty Chinese, etc ...)
  • Those that combined military expansionism, with economic growth (Romans, Sassanids, Ottomans, Britian, United States, etc ...)

The problem with 75% of your posts on these sorts of topics, in my view, is that you have a view of the way you would like things to be, and then do whatever you can to make things fit that view. I don't have that burden, but instead take things as they are, even when I don't like them.
 
You want to present a world where lovely, peaceful, dynamic economies can be built by peaceful, lovely means ... so, you claim that is the way to build them. I want to see a historical example of that being the case.
 
The same holds true for seeksfemslave, when he said:
 
"It amazes me that some posters appear to believe that military power is the engine of economic success."
 
It may amaze you, but when you make a statement like that, you may want to include any country in history, that gained economic success, without at some point having to promote, back or protect it with military means.



meatcleaver -> RE: Economic Decline of United States, Eruption of US Militarism (2/15/2007 7:21:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn


You want to present a world where lovely, peaceful, dynamic economies can be built by peaceful, lovely means ... so, you claim that is the way to build them. I want to see a historical example of that being the case.
 


How many countries have Chinas and India invaded to achieve their current economic success? It is not beyond imagination that one or both of these countries will be superpowers within 50 years.

Britain's initial economic wealth didn't come from conquest, its successful merchants brought in the wealth. It was only after becoming wealthy could Britain even start to afford to challenge France and Spain for supremacy..



caitlyn -> RE: Economic Decline of United States, Eruption of US Militarism (2/15/2007 7:45:48 AM)

China and India ... those would by hypothetical examples for the future.
 
To my way of thinking, you are finding a line in history with the British, and excluding all in front of that line.
  • 1066, started power in the British Isles.
  • Henry II promoted that power on to the continent, by military means.
  • Edward Longshanks unification policies (wars), strengthed the region.
  • The Hundred Years War firmly established England as a major European player.

Without those events, there would never have been British trade.



seeksfemslave -> RE: Economic Decline of United States, Eruption of US Militarism (2/15/2007 8:10:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn
The same holds true for seeksfemslave, when he said:
"It amazes me that some posters appear to believe that military power is the engine of economic success."
 
It may amaze you, but when you make a statement like that, you may want to include any country in history, that gained economic success, without at some point having to promote, back or protect it with military means.


No military commander on Earth can promote what doesnt exist ie an industry that is capable of trading in a global arena but hasn't been built up yet
Ditto with protect.

When the US began to develop with the potential to economically dominate World Trade, about 1870 I believe, I do not know, but would be very surprised if the miltary was geared up to interfere as it is today.
Were not your military adventures in your own back yard ?

I am going to post this then look up a couple of dates concerning US military action post civil War.



meatcleaver -> RE: Economic Decline of United States, Eruption of US Militarism (2/15/2007 8:15:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn
  • 1066, started power in the British Isles.



England lost its power in 1066, it was invaded and occupied.

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn
  • Henry II promoted that power on to the continent, by military means.



Henry II held legal possessions in France. England wasn't so much recognized as a country so much as a possession where the ruling class spoke French and the ruled spoke English. It was the 100 years war that gave England and France their separate identities.

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn
  • Edward Longshanks unification policies (wars), strengthed the region.



Again, he didn't unify anything but succeeded in giving the peoples of Britain separate identities. He reinforced the sense of difference between the English, Scots and Welsh, even though he annexed Wales for England.

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn
  • The Hundred Years War firmly established England as a major European player.

  • Without those events, there would never have been British trade.


The 100 years war gave France and England their separate identities but it didn't turn England into a major European player. England had some famous victories against all the odds but it never had anywhere near the wealth, power and influence of the French and Spanish until the end of the 18th century. In fact for a large part of that time Sweden was far more wealthier and powerful than England. England started to gain power in the Tudor period when merchants made their fortunes from the spice trade and Elizabeth turned a blind eye to privateers robbing the Spanish because the Spanish wouldn't accept a protestant on the throne of England. It was because of French and Spanish threats that England wanted to seal its back door by stopping invasions through Scotland and Ireland. England was always susceptable to invasion and defeated several attempts but it didn't have enough power to be anything other than defend itself. The French monarchy did all in its power to stop Britain trading with continental Europe and parry British merchant men in the east. It was the French revolution that gave Britain its opportunity and it took it with both hands. North America cost Britain huge sums in trading deficits and wars with France so losing the war in north America had its advantages, released a lot of resources to trade and expand in the east. If any events that could be isolated as significant in Britain's rise it was defeat in North America and the French revolution. Napoleon trying to stop Britain trading with continental Europe gave added impetus to find new markets in the east. It was only with the defeating of the French Navy at the Nile and Trafalgar could Britain with confidence project its power.

In fact one of the reasons Britain could compete with France and Spain was because its dockyards at Devonport were in fact production lines. It was making the equivalent of Model T frigates. An example of how innovative and dynamic the British economy was to become and it was the economy that came before the military power. Devonport was able to happen because wealth was coming into the country from far eastern trade.



caitlyn -> RE: Economic Decline of United States, Eruption of US Militarism (2/15/2007 8:29:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
It was the French revolution that gave Britain its opportunity and it took it with both hands. North America cost Britain huge sums in trading deficits and wars with France so losing the war in north America had its advantages, released a lot of resources to trade and expand in the east. If any events that could be isolated as significant in Britain's rise it was defeat in North America and the French revolution. Napoleon trying to stop Britain trading with continental Europe gave added impetus to find new markets in the east. It was only with the defeating of the French Navy at the Nile and Trafalgar could Britain with confidence project its power.


Debate on the conclusions from historical events is sort of meaningless ... get ten people in here, and you will get ten conclusions.
 
I did find the above statement strong, in support of my point. 



meatcleaver -> RE: Economic Decline of United States, Eruption of US Militarism (2/15/2007 8:31:18 AM)

Then why ask in the first place.



caitlyn -> RE: Economic Decline of United States, Eruption of US Militarism (2/15/2007 8:35:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
When the US began to develop with the potential to economically dominate World Trade, about 1870 I believe, I do not know, but would be very surprised if the miltary was geared up to interfere as it is today.
Were not your military adventures in your own back yard ?

I am going to post this then look up a couple of dates concerning US military action post civil War.


A military adventure in your own back yard, is still a military adventure. You might want to talk to the American Indians, and look at the events of 1998.
 
Go back further ... without victory in the Revolutionary War, and an off-handed draw in the War of 1812 (where the Royal Navy won all naval battles [;)][;)]), would there have even been American trade expansion?



caitlyn -> RE: Economic Decline of United States, Eruption of US Militarism (2/15/2007 8:51:11 AM)

Because your claim, yet again, was:
 
"Countries don't achieve economic success through military action but through a dynamic economy (and luck of circumstance in many cases), they them keep it by the same dynamism."
 
I think that statement is false. When called to support it, all you have come up with is future examples (China & India), and the British, which is really just and interpretation of events (in truth, either of us 'could' be right.)
 
On the other hand, I can easily dispute that statement with several nations/peoples that directly contradict it, and are really beyond dispute:
 
Magyars
Huns
Hsung-Nu (who didn't even have a written language)
Mongols
 
Pillage for profit, one and all. If I wanted, I could probably come up with a list of hundreds of such examples.
 
Believe it or not, we are in agreement about war. It's a bad thing ... it should be a last resort. But, you are trying to paint war as something besides being profitable, which just isn't true. War is profitable on an epic scale ... which may have something to do with why people seem to keep doing it, even though it is so aweful.
 
If you, for a minute, think that the United States will not turn a huge profit on events in Iraq, you are just fooling yourself. That's not a justification for being there ... there is no justification for being there ... but, it is reality none the less.



philosophy -> RE: Economic Decline of United States, Eruption of US Militarism (2/15/2007 9:00:32 AM)

*general reply*

...seems to me that there are two issues here that need seperating. Firstly it seems to me self evident that militay power and expansionism has historically been associated with cultural expansion or empire building. However, the act of maintaining such an entity, once built, is more complex. Continued military expansion historically reaches a point of diminished returns....the emergent complexity of such structures just about guarantees it. The USSR and the old British Empire could be seen as examples of this, the USSR breaking down catastrophically and the BE in a slightly more structured way.
A more interesting question would be, can anyone point to a culture where continuous military expansion worked all the time? Eventually, there has to be a shift in focus or the empire inevitably falls.



caitlyn -> RE: Economic Decline of United States, Eruption of US Militarism (2/15/2007 9:09:03 AM)

Now that ... I completely agree with. Those that go too far, do so at their own risk, and you can actually use my own examples to support it.
 
Magyars - finally pissed so many people off, that they were ganged up on.
 
Huns - Should have stopped with conquest of parts of the Eastern Empire. The defeat at Chalon broke their back forever, even though it took quite a bit longer to manifest.
 
Hsung-Nu - Never gained the economic strength to build on military gains.
 
Mongols - Were so successful, they brought themselves in contact with too many powerful entities.

I think the answer to your question will be that nobody will be able to find one.



philosophy -> RE: Economic Decline of United States, Eruption of US Militarism (2/15/2007 9:14:27 AM)

Again Caitlyn, we agree.

Seems to me that we are now left with an interesting and pertinent question. How does the USA avoid the same fate? What cultural or societal forces will prevent it?



Furr -> RE: Economic Decline of United States, Eruption of US Militarism (2/15/2007 9:21:25 AM)

What a great thread.  Putting My 2 cents in:

From the beginning of the U.S. its economic expansion was to the west (There is a great book on this by William Williams, a U of Wisconsin Economic history professor, sadly now deceased).  It could afford to avoid foreign entanglements.  By the first and second world war, however, U.S. financial support for the Allies required that we join the fray.  It was the way to secure our loans to them.  The end of the second world war hostilities found the U.S. running out of room for western economic expansion.  Its view was to create a strong European economy (by the Marshall Plan)  into which the U.S. could expand.  Stalin sought an eastern European buffer zone to protect the USSR from invasion.

As the cold war developed and soviet expansion threatened, the US (relying upon the theories of George Kennen of the US State Department) took a view toward containment as a means of producing the economic collapse of the USSR.  This occurred in 1989,ending WWII (because with the collapse of the USSR the spoils of the war were finally settled).

Now, with the rise of the EU, Europe was not a place for US trade to expand, but a competitor instead.  The US as the only remaining super power chose to get embroiled in the Middle East, seeking to expand our markets there, our goods being purchased by oil.  Because there is no wealth there, Africa was not chosen for US expanding markets.  (Yes there are lots of other reasons as well,)

So we are now engaged in a great war in Iraq, costing American blood, gold and honor.  Until Iraq is stabilized and using oil to purchase US goods there will not be a win.  Given this goal, how do we achieve it?  I don't know.   I do know as a US citizen, I am spending billions to secure this oil and market.  And sadly, the oil, after being purchased in My name will go to the oil companies and I will have to repurchase it. 

If an expanded market is achieved, the cost will ultimately be repaid and US economy will continue to expand.  Should that fail, the cost of this war and subsequent wars will result in the demise of US hegemony.

I welcome your thoughts and debate.




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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875