Iamon_lyme: I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather did. Not yelling and screaming like the passengers in his car.

Iamon_lyme:

> Obama is a willing tool to get what he wants. Doesn't care what people will say
> about him when he's gone. He is not the anti Christ. He is just one of many warm up
> steps before we see the real deal emerge. Doesn't matter if he is really a bona fide
> U.S. citizen or not, because he slipped in under the radar, and now we are stuck
> with him until the next election.

Isn't this true of every president? (or prime minister, if you are in a different country) Every president has been an egocentric, self-serving tool. They start promising in some way, then as time passes the public's enchantment dies off and people can't wait to put the next tool into power. Every president starts deeply loved, and ends up in a hole. Look at the Bush administration. At its height it had over 80% approval ratings, only to finish so despised that even Republicans themselves abandoned the president like rats leaving a sinking ship.

> U.S. will continue losing influence in the world

Empires rise and fall. The USA is not the exception.

> the push towards setting up a global economy will be realised

But we already have a global economy. The gasoline in my car comes from crude oil from Alberta. The cotton in my clothes was grown in the USA, but the clothes themselves were made in Bangladesh. Half of the components in this computer were made in China. My car is Korean. Etc.

The economy of our planet has been global at least since the late Middle Ages. I recommend a book called "Manias, Panics and Crashes", by Charles P. Kindleberger. It covers the subject of economic cycles and how they spread around the world. The only difference is that today the information is passed on instantly. Before electronics were invented economic information moved slowly, but it moved nevertheless.

Übergeek 바둑이: Sorry, I thought you knew what I meant. The melding of nations into a centralized one world governing body is what globalization will invariably lead to. U.S. losing it's influence is necessary for achieving that goal, because our strengh and independance has up until now resisted that effort. For the "ideals" of globalists to be realised, the U.S. needs to lose power and influence in the world. So, we should sell our debt to China so they can lend money to us at an obscene interest rate, and at the same time allow intellectual property be stollen from us (by them). Then let's print lots and lots of money to dilute its value, which was getting lower anyway. Tax the hell out those evil mom and pop enterprises that employ people who also don't pay enough taxes, then complain how there are fewer businesses to tax because those fools weren't willing to work for nothing anymore.. They could have applied for food stamps, like everyone else, so what's their problem? Everyone understands how any one moving high volume of stuff can make a profit selling at low prices. But for some reason the government doesn't understand this principle. It wants to kill and eat the goose laying the golden eggs, instead of incouraging the goose to lay more eggs. More eggs laid, more tax revenue to suck off. But if no more goose, then no more eggs. Then what? You see where I'm going with this? Do you really want someone like me to expand on this, after I left the door open for any fool to walk in? I didn't think so.

Iamon_lyme: The tax rates in the USA are low compared to 40-50 years ago. America's golden age was more to do with that Europe/Japan/China & Russia were rebuilding, for if it were taxation.. then why with high rates back then was America apparently doing so well?

As for globalisation..... multinational firms have been more hell bent on that, and have added more to the fall of small firms than any government has.. imho.

Iamon_lyme:

> The melding of nations into a centralized one world governing body is what globalization will invariably lead to.

Is that bad? If it is bad, why? There will never be a world governing body because everybody is too selfish to relinquish their power to some form of centralized government. The American and European public would never stand for that either. In any case, a centralized governing body might mean that there might be uniformity in how laws are applied. If some Fascist decides to bomb another country, he would be made to pay. If some businessman cheats workers of their wages in another countries, he would be made to pay. A centralized government for the world could have decided advantages. No more of this: in my ocuntry only these kind of people are allowed, and if you are not like them, I will kill you. A centralized government could ensure greater equality and justice if the laws are fair and well-enforced.

> U.S. losing it's influence is necessary for achieving that goal, because our strengh and independance has up until now resisted that effort. For the "ideals" of globalists to be realised, the U.S. needs to lose power and influence in the world.

This is what a lot of people don't get. The USA is becoming the world's central government. The USA is not resisting the creation of a central government, but as the dominant empire the USA is becoming the central government. There is not a corner of the world where the USA is not controlling the financial system, commodities production, weapons production, etc. The few countries that are not under American control are those that are too big and too hostile, and even then those countries depend on American capital and consumption to survive (China and Iran are two good examples). The USA has the largest military force and uses it to promote its political and economic interests and to enforce its version of international law (for example, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, etc.) The USA has also used dictators to advantage in order to gain political and economic control of other countries (e.g.: Latin America, Africa). When countries refuse to comply with American demands, they get crushed (Vietnam, Grenada). The USA also uses military might to impose its version of democracy on other countries (like Lybia, Iraq). That means that slowly world governments are being shaped into the American model.

It must be noted that the USA is not the only empire to do this. The British Empire did it, as did the French, the Spanish, the Romans, etc. The difference is that now the scale of control is much greater because the armies and weapons used are formidable. The USA is becoming the world government, and rather than American influence decreasing, it is increasing more and more every day. Americans shouldn't be afraid of a world government, because the USA itself is becoming that world government.

> So, we should sell our debt to China so they can lend money to us at an obscene interest rate, and at the same time allow intellectual property be stollen from us (by them).

This always makes me laugh. Americans complain of selling debt to China, but how is this happening? The answer is thorugh consumption of goods manufactured in China. As long as the American public wants cheap goods, companies like Walmart will manufacture them in China. Then we will see a flow of capital from consumers to producers. In other words, from American consumers to wealthy Chinese manufacturers. Americans are not selling their debt, they are consuming their way into debt. I found this little snippet:

"In 2008, the total U.S. trade deficit was $695.9 billion, which is $1.8 trillion in exports minus $2.5 trillion in imports. The deficit on petroleum products was $386.3 billion. The trade deficit with China was $266.3 billion, a new record and up from $304 million in 1983. The United States had a $144.1 billion surplus on trade in services, and $821.2 billion deficit on trade in goods in 2008.["

In 2008 the trade deficit was $695,9 billion. With China it was $266.3 billion. That means that in 2008 38% of the American trade deficit is with China alone!

Who should be blamed? China? Voracious consumers? American companies that took all the manufacturing overseas? The government (both Republican and Democrat) that allowed it all to happen?

> Tax the hell out those evil mom and pop enterprises that employ people who also don't pay enough taxes, then complain how there are fewer businesses to tax because those fools weren't willing to work for nothing anymore..

People forget that the bigger the company, the less taxes they pay. Most people would be surprised to know that General Electric paid no taxes in 2010. That's right, not even one cent in taxes, and they are one of the largest companies in the world. Walmart pays very little to, as do Exxon, Intel, etc. The reason is that the entire taxation system exists for the benefit of big monopolies. Big companies can afford to hire good accountants and lawyers. Genereal Electric has a full time team of accountats and lawyers and their job is to make sure that the companies deducts everything from their taxes. Small companies can't afford to do that. Who should be blamed? The big monopolies? Their crooked accountats? The corrupt government that passed tax breaks and loopholes in taxation law?

> Everyone understands how any one moving high volume of stuff can make a profit selling at low prices.

That is how American companies became the biggest and most successful in the world. It is also the source of American political, economic and military power. It is not something that American are going to give up. The American public would not stand for giving up the lifestyle they have become accustomed to.

> But for some reason the government doesn't understand this principle. It wants to kill and eat the goose laying the golden eggs, instead of incouraging the goose to lay more eggs. More eggs laid, more tax revenue to suck off. But if no more goose, then no more eggs. Then what?

This is the one things that governments don't want to do. To encourage small business sounds nice during election campaings, but the government is heavily influenced by big monopolies, and those monopolies want as little competition as possible. If the government cared about small businesses, they would tax the big monopolies and use that money to make sure that more businesses succeed. Instead we have a situation in which over 80% of small businesses go bankrupt.

Übergeek 바둑이: I think you are misunderstanding my point. I don't like what is hapopening to the U.S. because this is where I live, but after putting personal feelings to the side I can't ignore the fact that it has served its purpose in the world, and now will be part of an effort to create stability through uniformity. I assumed Brave New World was intended as a warning, not a road map for getting there. My assumptions are rarely correct. I can agree with much of what you say. except for your question why is uniformity a bad thing. And the fact that we are becoming increasingly dependant on foreign goods and services is as comforting to me as knowing that if my business fails because of goons demanding their protection money (seriously, what is the difference?) I can always come crawling back to those goons and ask for some of it back in the form of governmental goods and services. Yes, America will decline and get absorbed, because no nation has ever managed to avoid the event horizen of moral degradation after acheiving stability and wealth. History has proven this over and over. But it is interesting to me how those who don't believe in Biblical prophesy are the ones working their tails off to make it come true. Just because I don't like where we are heading to doesn't mean I don't believe we won't get there. As I said once before, I don't like unpleasant surprises.

Iamon_lyme:

> I don't like what is hapopening to the U.S. because this is where I live, but after putting personal feelings to the side I can't ignore the fact that it has served its purpose in the world, and now will be part of an effort to create stability through uniformity.

I think that the biggest challenge that the USA will face in the future is not terrorism or a financial meltdown, but the slow degradation of American life through inaction. If Americans (or any country) want their life to be better, they have to accept that change is necessary in the political and economic system. I am not talking about catastrophic change or revolution, but changes that ensure that every citizen gets an equal chance at a good life. As things are, the power structure is skewed in favour of big monopolies and wealthy businessmen. That means that big numbers of the population are having their lives slowly eroded away. For this to change, Americans will have to accept that pursuing capitalism at all costs will not solve the problem, but merely aggravate it.

Americans don't like anything that feels like socialism (the current healthcare debate is a good sign of that). However, only through "socialist" measures can the lives of the average working class citizens improve. The 20th century is a sign of that. All that we have to do is look at the European community after WW II. The socialist measures taken there greatly improved the lives of many of Europe's citizens. Americans will have to accept that these socialist measures are not a sign of big government, but of a humane government. The USA (and other countries) needs not intrusive socialism but efficient socialism. That means a balance between the social safety net and the freedom of companies and businesses to operate. Unfortunately Ameican polticis has become polarized in bipartisanship, and that means that measures that could help the working class (like healthcare reform) are torn apart to the point that they become a failure. Big companies and lobbyists feed on that bipartisan system and exploit it for political and economic gain.

The USA also needs to do some soul searching in respect to its foreign policy. The USA has suceeded in building big army, navy and air forces. The Cold War and terrorism have skewed American foreign policy to one of preemptive action. What Americans politicians see as promoting democracy thorugh force is perceived differently outside of the USA. The increasing costs of keeping such a large military force are staggering and they are eroding away at the life of the American working class. If the USA could reduce its military budget in half, then it could provide free university education and free healthcare for everybody. Instead the money is being spent in enterprises which drain the American economy under the guise of keeping Americans safe. Somewhere in all this the USA has to find a balance between peaceful coexistence, self-defense, and the economics of war. It is difficult in our world, but the hawks that say that military might is the way to go are doing a disservice to taxpayers who front the money to pay for the wars. They are not the ones paying for the wars, and it is not their families that get killed in the bombings and the fighting.