Notices
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: IS THE GLOBAL ECONOMY THE U.S. EMPIRE?

  1. #1 IS THE GLOBAL ECONOMY THE U.S. EMPIRE? 
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    No doubt but what we are the pinmaker in the Global Economy. We here in the States have done more than anyone to set it up and keep it going. We have influence and exercise certain controls, as a result, all over the world. We even have our troops billeted in approximately one hundred of the nations. We see that any nation that does not cooperate with us has economic sanctions imposed on it. That is like what the Pope could do in Medieval Times. He would put a curse on a troublesome country or state called an anethama which deprived it of all commerce and communication with others.

    But that does not make it all an empire. It could just be a way of keeping close watch on our commonwealth.

    Still, I say it is an empire because empires tax. Either they draw in spoils or impose a tax. Yet, we do not impose a tax. We have a far more subtle, more “modern” way of extracting from our empire. We allow a huge federal foreign trade deficit to build up. We buy cheap goods from all over the world that enable us to live well just by going to the dollar stores! And we pay for it with IOUs.

    So, we accumulate trillions of dollar debts, money we owe others. What if we never pay it back? Isn't that a tax? Does anyone actually think we ever will?

    It is sure to just keep growing until finally people around the world are shocked by some economic crisis. Then, they will dump our IOUs on the market and crash the dollar. They will have lost and lost heavily. We will have had decades of a free ride. When it comes to an end, they will not thank us for being part of our empire!

    Charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    For once I can't argue with you. I would say this is one of those self evident truths that the majority of people are blissfully unaware of.

    Watch panic set in over the next decade, amongst US economists and fiscal experts, as the Euro is increasingly used for global trade.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    the worlds Gross Domestic Product and Services is placed at 48.2 trillion dollars, with the European Community doing 14.5 and the US at 13.3 trillion, all in annuals. fastest increases are in China, then India.

    national debts are all below one years GDP other than Japan, which is 120% or so. The US is 65% of annual GDP and about 4 times the governments collections or income...placing this on a personal or family level; your four year projected income could equal your total debt.

    debt is part of the value of the money unit used, in any particular economy. another word, inflation is caused as the value of a countries instrument declines. any country can pay off its debt, which would make cost of goods go up accordingly. that is they could write out the checks to every one who holds this debt and the public would pay the price at the local dinner, grocery or gas station...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I think the reason we devalue our dollar world wide is that we need it devalued so we can sell our exports. It'll hurt us on oil, though, because we can't manufacture that domestically.

    To me, the sense in which we are becoming an empire is that we're pushing our economic system on the rest of the world. An economic system that favours those who already have money, because they're the ones with the leverage to be able to buy up everything, and then prevent competitors from making it onto the market. (Especially in unregulated economies).

    Take Iraqi oil fields, for example. If those become privatized, and sold to the highest bidder.............. who do you think the highest bidder will be? Will it be ordinary members of the Iraqi public? Or will it be American oil companies?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    most all currency floats on the worlds many commodity markets, including the US dollar. governments can step in by selling or buying there own currency to prevent over reactions of these markets. the US has rarely done this. Yes, as the value of any currency drops, their products are cheaper in the markets who gained value.

    the US economic system, permits ownerships by individuals from anyplace on earth. many US companies today are owned by foreign investors and all publicly traded, have some foreign ownership. mergers and/or acquisitions require congressional approval regardless to which countries are involved.

    for the US to interfere into the affairs of business, the action of that business must be considered a threat to national security. this is why many countries own there oil/gas/coal rights. however as a rule these are exporting nations, a form of income and generally to primary source for income. Iraq already is state owned and has been. if sold or taken private it would be as a publicly owned corporation, under the Iraq laws, which to get the maximum value would probably allow investments to 49% of the total shares. for Exxon or any one person/company to gain would be very costly and be poor business.

    1998 Largest world oil companies...

    Saudi Arabia Oil Co. 3.028 billion barrels per year.
    Petrol Mexico 1.278 billion
    Petrol Venezuela 1.258 billion
    China National 1.168 billion
    these all state owned....

    publicly owned;
    BP/Amoco 963 Million barrels per year
    Exxon/Mobil 894 million
    Royal Dutch 859 million
    these are all international, all doing more than 50% of there business outside the US...

    Haliburton, is the largest Company used by all the above to explore for, drill and equip for production.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    most all currency floats on the worlds many commodity markets, including the US dollar. governments can step in by selling or buying there own currency to prevent over reactions of these markets. the US has rarely done this. Yes, as the value of any currency drops, their products are cheaper in the markets who gained value.
    What muddles this whole issue is that, many of America's larger private business interests possess, all by themselves, more economic influence than a small nation.

    Those private interests can manipulate the world economy plenty enough on their own, without the need for our official government to do anything. I mean, even the way our own currency is adjusted internally (The Federal Reserve) is a half way privatized institution.

    the US economic system, permits ownerships by individuals from anyplace on earth. many US companies today are owned by foreign investors and all publicly traded, have some foreign ownership. mergers and/or acquisitions require congressional approval regardless to which countries are involved.
    I bet our attitude toward this issue would change pretty dramatically if some foreign power actually had enough money to do serious damage to our economy. And, again, our own internal rules are just about as strong as most nations' international rules about who can own what, when, and how.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    the use of power, to control other nations is not a far fetched idea. OPEC has done it to influence our economy and their profits for years. we have used it as a nation, to No. Korea, Cuba and others to achieve a result and certainly many others would like to try. business on the other hand, nearly in all cases has a competing entity out there just looking to enter another's territory.

    manipulation of the value in your own nations economics has never worked and has been tried many times. the only real results are usually only in your own country.

    our national policy, has always invited investments in side our country. the investments have a value, i assume under the assumption that these values will produce a income or increase in value. even if one country could buy everything in another, there interest are subject to the success of that country. in reality these values are set by individuals and business to begin with and where they come from is secondary. NYC is a good example. much is owned by foreigners, a place to retire to, operate a business from or simply as investments. the values are 100 fold many places for this interest over many other locations. a 300.00 a month apartment in Omaha, say a nice 2b-1b, not available in NYC to begin with would likely cost a million to buy and a 500.00 per month management fee to purchase. i have no idea what the property tax differentials would be, but i am sure its staggering.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I think it depends on what form foriegn investment takes. If they just come in and buy up the existing capital, that's not always good. If they show up and build new capital, that is pretty much always good.

    A lot of China's success comes from the fact they typically will not sell existing factories, dams, or other things like that to a foriegn investor. If that investor wants to come in and build a new factory, dam, or whatever else, they're usually free to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    Interesting perspective, although I'm not fully convince everyone in the US will benefit from this Copperfieldian act.

    "So, we accumulate trillions of dollar debts, money we owe others. "
    One possible scenario has the US(working people) pay the piper, while only people who possess massive off-shore accounts and assets avoid the hardships and in fact potentially benefit, by buying back US property for a dime on the dollar(and able to hold on to what they own) and profiteering from the desperation of the average joe, in other words the averadge guy might pay through lowering of living standards, devaluation/inflation, etc.
    Such a crisis might just end up being a massive transfer of wealth (like wars can be if you read 'War is a Racket' by Smedley Butler).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Ice; National Debt, always must include future growth to determine an outcome. The *Doom and Gloom* scenario, would suggest some collapse in the World or even the US economy. For all practical purpose, the US total GDP and future predictions of GDP are based on the public participation or there buying power. This accounts for up to 75% of that GDP according to most economist.

    The 8-9 trillion $ US debt is owned mostly by US investors, or government entities themselves. (Savings Bonds, Security Bond and the same US Dollar based investment bonds any person or government can purchased. I have not check this out lately, but this is somewhere around 2 trillion at tops held by foreign governments or people. Remember that the US government alone owns hundreds of trillion dollars in real estate and properties around the country. The Oil Sands alone in Utah/Wyoming have a net value some where over 100 trillion and holds 65% of the total Washington DC real estate. In fact they could clean out our National Forest's undergrowth (food for the fires you hear about), to the paper mills and lumber industry paying off the that debt.

    Our biggest threat will come from Socialism as it creeps into politics and generated to get that vote. This is evident in the European Systems which are near cradle to grave welfare for those that produce little to none.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Well, welfare arguments have to be taken with a grain of salt. Overpopulation is the real problem. If you don't give people welfare, then you have to find them jobs, and that's not as easy on the economy as it sounds.

    Sometimes, rather than give a guy a job driving a truck around in circles, or digging a hole so he can fill it in later, all the while building up some make-believe justification for why his work is supposed to be beneficial to the economy (when it clearly isn't) --- it's better just to be honest and admit we have nothing for him to do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •