Does the World Actually NEED another "Great Depression"?

cerebus said:
So you see the mass starvation of the greater body of the world's population as a positive step?

In fact the irony is that even in a depression there is no need for anyone to starve, there is no drop in the level of arable land, farming techniques are as productive as ever, the world can still produce a surplus of food. So there is no need for society to ever revert to an agrarian lifestyle, and it never will.

The question is who owns the methods of production, who controls the food supply. There is no Joseph's storehouse, a capitalist society is self-serving to the uttermost. Without profit they simply would not produce, the land would be allowed to rot. A total financial meltdown would probably look something like Zimbabwe.
Click to expand...

This is hectic, and I hope that we won't end up like ZIM. However, I still see family and friend values more possible than the bullsh** fake rich momma's boys if the depression hits us.
 
But I seriously doubt that there will ever be a total global meltdown, I'm just using it to illustrate a point. I think this crisis will be a serious one and might cause a fundamental power shift in the nations - America might stop being the de facto world economic power - but the economy itself will eventually come back.
 
Millions would die of starvation yes... and the rest would plant twenty rows each of corn the next day on the nearest piece of open land...
Click to expand...

Just seems by your tone and the context of the thread that you consider that in order to achieve your dream of a perfectly agrarian society we might need to cull some excess human flesh.
 
cerebus said:
Just seems by your tone and the context of the thread that you consider that in order to achieve your dream of a perfectly agrarian society we might need to cull some excess human flesh.
Click to expand...

All in line with Karl Marx. The Volkerabfalle have to perish, in the revolutionary
holocaust.
 
cerebus said:
But I seriously doubt that there will ever be a total global meltdown, I'm just using it to illustrate a point. I think this crisis will be a serious one and might cause a fundamental power shift in the nations - America might stop being the de facto world economic power - but the economy itself will eventually come back.
Click to expand...

Why do you say so?

Will an economic collapse of USA ELIMINATE the reasons why the
US is the most economically advanced nation on earth?

NO.

1. US controls continet. Therefore huge intrernal market. No risk of attack.
2. US work ethic > everyone else. (even Asians, and many Asians call US home).
3. US military power.
4. US innovation and scientific development.
5. Melting pot of cultures - best of English, Japanese, Chinese, German, Russian etc.
 
I think you're confusing military and economic power. The US's financial dominance is already being threatened by the emergence of a unified Europe, China, Russia, though those superpowers may never threaten the US in a military sense. China for instance is proving very resistant to the same stock market meltdown that is happening in the US.

If the US economy stagnates and goes into a sustained decline, I predict that those countries will rise up to displace the US, to take over production of the same things that made America strong. America will recover but it will never have the same supereminent prestige it has held throughout the 20th century.
 
cerebus said:
I think you're confusing military and economic power. The US's financial dominance is already being threatened by the emergence of a unified Europe, China, Russia, though those superpowers may never threaten the US in a military sense. China for instance is proving very resistant to the same stock market meltdown that is happening in the US.

If the US economy stagnates and goes into a sustained decline, I predict that those countries will rise up to displace the US, to take over production of the same things that made America strong. America will recover but it will never have the same supereminent prestige it has held throughout the 20th century.
Click to expand...

I'm not.

For one SECURITY AND STABILITY are central to ECONOMIC
ADVANCEMENT. CHINA shares border with Russia, India and Japan.
That's not SECURE for CHINA. There are border disputes,
and the ex-Soviet union itself could start local civil wars.
Same for Burma, Sri Lanka and Indonesia.

INDIA and PAKISTAN and KASHMIR. Need I say more?

EUROPE is mixed, a hodge-podge of nations who were gassing each other
just 50 years ago. Secondly they border RUSSIA.
Where is the security and stability?

USA.
SECURITY AND STABILITY is given. Who's going to invade them?
From where???

Military and economic supremacy go hand in hand.
 
For one SECURITY AND STABILITY are central to ECONOMIC
ADVANCEMENT. CHINA shares border with Russia, India and Japan.
That's not SECURE for CHINA. There are border disputes,
and the ex-Soviet union itself could start local civil wars.
Same for Burma, Sri Lanka and Indonesia.
Click to expand...

China is simply too large to be attacked.

EUROPE is mixed, a hodge-podge of nations who were gassing each other
just 50 years ago. Secondly they border RUSSIA.
Where is the security and stability?
Click to expand...

The European Union has the potential to provide that security. Because of its proximity to Russia, Europe also has the ability to strike a treaty that would give it access to Russian oil and Russian military grunt.

Military and economic supremacy go hand in hand.
Click to expand...

Maybe once but not necessarily any longer, in an age of increasingly borderless economies. At least, China Russia and European Union I would say are sufficiently positioned that with the right stimulus - i.e. the temporary collapse of the US economy - they could rise economically to become equal with the US. What happens after that, whether they are able to hold onto that strength, is an open question. In this age, military expansion is actually far less of a priority for most countries than economic.

So you disagree that Karl Marx advocated genocide in the 19th century?

No I just disagree with Karl Marx lol.
 
cerebus said:
Just seems by your tone and the context of the thread that you consider that in order to achieve your dream of a perfectly agrarian society we might need to cull some excess human flesh.
Click to expand...

no no... you misread me. I am not at all for that. I abhor suffering and misery.

But I do think the human spirit is remarkable and under pressure can achieve great things. I would def. love to go back to that lifestyle of close family life and hard farm work. I know that is idealistic though. I probably would not survive two weeks on a farm. :rolleyes:

I was taking aim at the rat race and debt controlled lifestyle as vxv put it.
 
Ah, I see. 'k.

But I think you're misaiming if you think that a global fiscal meltdown will achieve that ;)
 
cerebus said:
China is simply too large to be attacked.
Click to expand...

You do not need a major war for instability. China has Tibet and it has numerous regions with Muslim minorities. It also has a land dispute with
Russia for Vladivostok among other things. China is eyeing Russian territory
and they have fought wars as Communist states against each other.

China also has other serious issues. One is the decline of the population.
Remember China started their program of one family-one child recently.
This was not a natural gradual occurrence but a sudden one. As the current
population ages, and we hit that cut-off, who will work for those hundreds
of millions of pensioners in China?

Remember the tech know how in China is all Western.

The Russian Federation is re-awakening from its post Soviet Union
slumber. As Russian Nationalism comes to practice and as more
republics attempt breakaway - we'll see more instability.

Don't forget that the Russian economy is held up by artificially high
oil and gas prices. Without those RUssia would be in serious doggy-doo.

The European Union you say can sign a treaty with Russia. Well there
have been countless treaties in Europe for the past 200 years and they
have not achieved peace or stability. There was peace and stability
in Europe because US forces were there and Stalin had seen the nuclear
bomb and not because of Potsdam agreements.

Europe has a similar problem to China as has Russia. European population
is declining. Japanese population is declining. Russian population
is declining even faster than everyone elses'.

Middle East - as economies falter what happens when the
demand for oil falls? Will the gulf states be able to
maintain their military regime stability?

What about the Indian vs Pakistani dispute over Kashmir?

Do read the article from Stratfor I posted in the forum, and see
that old-conflicts do re-emerge. There will always be conflict and
it will be based on national or ethnic lines. We just saw a conflict
in Georgia and not long ago we had ethnic cleansing in the heart
of Europe in former Yugoslavia.

I disagree entirely. For me - looking at the past - its logical to see that
the US will remain the major superpower. USA has the SAFE territory,
it has the skilled manpower and it has the tech know how.

If we look at the main reasons why the US became so great we
can see that none of that will change. The US is the
leading R&D centre. The US is the leading innovator.
And yes, the US has not fought a war on its territory since
1865 (Civil War). The Europeans have fought in 1879, 1914,
1925, 1939, 1991 and in 1999. Some people would classify the Soviet occupation
of Eastern Europe as an effective 'war' too as everything was destroyed.

Regarding Marx, the guy advocated racial genocide. Its not
a well known fact but its something you can use against Socialists
and Communists who have not read up enough about their hero.

Just because we're in an age of the internet I don't see
that reasons for instability will change. Europe and Asia
is a quagmire and a potential deathtrap.

I don't see anyone ELSE in as good a position as USA to re-emerge
from any economic collapse and regain its economic superpower
status. OK, there is Africa, but for the same reasons I mentioned
under RUssia/EU and ASIA, I don't think that will happen.
 
Last edited:
cerebus said:
Ah, I see. 'k.

But I think you're misaiming if you think that a global fiscal meltdown will achieve that ;)
Click to expand...

Ja... I hear you... it is obviously a very complicated issue.. much more than the scope of us discussing it here.... just looking at all the "fallout" issues, some of which you mentioned, is scary.

But I still wish that something could change to bring people out of the debt trap that they find themselves in. It's like financial slavery.
 
Concerning Russia, I think that there will actually be increasing levels of stability as it edges closer to totalitarianism, or a neo-Soviet State. I think that most of the Russian states will be agglomerated through sheer bullying by the Mother. And an economy that is based on oil is one that is always cash-rich, so very liquid. The Russian people are showing their willingness to accept a quasi-Socialist state under Putin's 'overseership' if it brings them economic benefits, which it will. And Russia's oil situation is only getting stronger with global warming opening many of its locked up resources.

Historically it is very possible for a country to be both under military threat and economically successful. Look at Israel for goodness sake. So long as the skills and infrastructure are in place and there is a momentum towards commercial expansion the country will become strong.


As for Europe, they are uniquely placed in being able to match America for having a strong supply of business talent. And they are extremely globalised. Plus politically they are regarded more favourably by China, the Middle East and Russia than America. They have the potential to replace America for producing the financial talent needed for growth.

Then China, despite all its looming problems - ageing population, deplorable human rights record, imminent environmental collapse - is extremely aggressive, fiscally conservative and displaying a surprising amount of stock market buoyancy. Plus the world is always in need of cheap t-shirts.
 
cerebus said:
Historically it is very possible for a country to be both under military threat and economically successful. Look at Israel for goodness sake. So long as the skills and infrastructure are in place and there is a momentum towards commercial expansion the country will become strong.
Click to expand...

Israel is supported by very heavy duty foreign aid from the USA.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3362402,00.html

While you have made valid points I don't think the US has any problems
as serious as the ones facing China, Russia, EU and rest of Asia.
 
cerebus said:
I think this is one of those 'wait and see' things hey?
Click to expand...

Perhaps. I just think people are understimating the United States.

You don't become the only superpower out of the blue
and a global economic crisis will probably hit your competitors
harder than you anyway, so I think the US will still remain
in its top position. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X