[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Bipolarity is the most stable…
[/quote]
Yeah like Rome and Carthage…oh.[/quote]
Note that I wrote “the most stable” and not “bipolar systems NEVER lead to war!”
You seem to have a fixation on constructing straw men from my posts without assessing their overall substance.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]AliveAgain36 wrote:
Team America! Fuck Yeah![/quote]
Exactly…
[quote]pushharder wrote:
This article is three years old by the way.
I’ve heard some plausible scenarios for China imploding before it gains its predicted preeminence.
It failed to mention America’s booming energy sector including the largest natural gas reserves on the planet.[/quote]
I wonder how much damage would be done to China if the US Gov. defaulted on the approximately 4trillion dollars worth of debt China is holding. If the value of their yuan is linked to our dollar and we crashed our own system (like the gov. shutdown almost did) it would also crash theirs. Main difference would be that we have the resources to recuperate energy production and industrial manufacturing, whereas they may not. The yuan would crash and their cost to import petro products relative to the currency would go through the roof.
^Economic warfare, sounds fun…
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]2busy wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
This article is three years old by the way.
…
It failed to mention America’s booming energy sector including the largest natural gas reserves on the planet.[/quote]
I noticed that too.
[/quote]
If America finds itself awash in oil and gas before too long a lot of things could change. We are predicted to be a net exporter before too long.[/quote]
One thing people fail to take into account however, is access to fresh water. All the ancient empires existed due to hydraulic despotism - i.e. control of agriculture via exclusive control of the world’s great waterways: the Nile, the Euphrates/the Tigris, the Indus and the Amazon. Rome was perched on the Tiber and controlled the fertile valleys of the volcanic mountains along the central ridge of the Italian peninsular.
Less than 3% of the world’s water is fresh. Most is locked up in polar ice and man has access to less than 1%. Water shortages are already a reality. In the coming century the agricultural sector will have to support twice as many people who currently inhabit the earth. The fresh water systems will become vastly more important and the cost of irrigating agricultural areas will rise exponentially causing a massive rise in the price of food.[/quote]
That’s a good point. Even at its pinnacle as a superpower the USSR could not feed itself and that certainly was a heavy contributor to its demise.
I wonder how this plays into the theory of the coming ascendancy of Russia, China, India and Iran. In other words will they be able to feed themselves and/or buy enough food from others?
I simply don’t know.[/quote]
I remember reading something that the fundamental basis of a strong vs weak economy was ultimately dependent on population demographics. The ratio of say 20-65 year olds present in the work force relative to the number of dependents, eg 0-20 year olds and older than 65 is what enables an economy to be strong or weak (I just used what I feel is generally accepted work-force ages, it’s just to illustrate a point).
Right now China’s economy is strong because they have a large work force, but when that work force is retired and those people have only had one child, there will be serious consequences and repercussions.
I’m sure it’s more complex than this, but I do feel this holds true to some extent, and is a contributing factor to the “baby boomers” presently retiring.
The tales of America’s demise have been greatly exaggerated. We are better off than China or India at this moment. We will be in 2025. The gap may shrink (and I don’t even think that is a bad thing, why would we root against progress in other countries?), but we will be fine. We will be trading partners with these countries which helps everyone out more. We are still innovative, still have the best military, we’re sitting on a potential energy goldmine, etc.
It’s good to be an American in 2013. It will be good in 2025. We should strive to improve, but not forget how lucky we are to have the advantages given to us by being born here. Not everyone gets those.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I remember reading something that the fundamental basis of a strong vs weak economy was ultimately dependent on population demographics. The ratio of say 20-65 year olds present in the work force relative to the number of dependents, eg 0-20 year olds and older than 65 is what enables an economy to be strong or weak (I just used what I feel is generally accepted work-force ages, it’s just to illustrate a point).
Right now China’s economy is strong because they have a large work force, but when that work force is retired and those people have only had one child, there will be serious consequences and repercussions.
I’m sure it’s more complex than this, but I do feel this holds true to some extent, and is a contributing factor to the “baby boomers” presently retiring.[/quote]
This makes a lot of sense. Korea is worried sick about its aging workforce and the fact that there is a very low birth-rate. Eventually there won’t be enough young people, and that will place a serious dent on the nation’s ability to do anything.
China can only face the same thing sooner or later with the 1-child policy coming to bite them in the ass.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I remember reading something that the fundamental basis of a strong vs weak economy was ultimately dependent on population demographics. The ratio of say 20-65 year olds present in the work force relative to the number of dependents, eg 0-20 year olds and older than 65 is what enables an economy to be strong or weak (I just used what I feel is generally accepted work-force ages, it’s just to illustrate a point).
Right now China’s economy is strong because they have a large work force, but when that work force is retired and those people have only had one child, there will be serious consequences and repercussions.
I’m sure it’s more complex than this, but I do feel this holds true to some extent, and is a contributing factor to the “baby boomers” presently retiring.[/quote]
This makes a lot of sense. Korea is worried sick about its aging workforce and the fact that there is a very low birth-rate. Eventually there won’t be enough young people, and that will place a serious dent on the nation’s ability to do anything.
China can only face the same thing sooner or later with the 1-child policy coming to bite them in the ass.[/quote]
I thought I read recently that policy was changing?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I remember reading something that the fundamental basis of a strong vs weak economy was ultimately dependent on population demographics. The ratio of say 20-65 year olds present in the work force relative to the number of dependents, eg 0-20 year olds and older than 65 is what enables an economy to be strong or weak (I just used what I feel is generally accepted work-force ages, it’s just to illustrate a point).
Right now China’s economy is strong because they have a large work force, but when that work force is retired and those people have only had one child, there will be serious consequences and repercussions.
I’m sure it’s more complex than this, but I do feel this holds true to some extent, and is a contributing factor to the “baby boomers” presently retiring.[/quote]
This makes a lot of sense. Korea is worried sick about its aging workforce and the fact that there is a very low birth-rate. Eventually there won’t be enough young people, and that will place a serious dent on the nation’s ability to do anything.
China can only face the same thing sooner or later with the 1-child policy coming to bite them in the ass.[/quote]
I thought I read recently that policy was changing? [/quote]
It is. China needs a younger workforce.
[quote]csulli wrote:
Some of you seem to know this already, but having spoken to people who literally fled here from China, do you realize how much it sucks there? They don’t have all the pieces of the puzzle necessary to usurp the throne.[/quote]
Heh, I’ve had this conversation with a person from China who came to America.
His words:
“China is nice to visit…but definitely don’t live there…”
It’s interesting to hear as well are outrageously expensive their housing is, as well as the lengths they go to silence opposition to the government.
Which is why whenever I hear people talk about the current “police state” in America, and while we do have issues with privacy we need to address, it’s nowhere near as bad as China.
Hell, from what I’ve been hearing, I kind of don’t want to VISIT either…
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]2busy wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
This article is three years old by the way.
…
It failed to mention America’s booming energy sector including the largest natural gas reserves on the planet.[/quote]
I noticed that too.
[/quote]
If America finds itself awash in oil and gas before too long a lot of things could change. We are predicted to be a net exporter before too long.[/quote]
One thing people fail to take into account however, is access to fresh water. All the ancient empires existed due to hydraulic despotism - i.e. control of agriculture via exclusive control of the world’s great waterways: the Nile, the Euphrates/the Tigris, the Indus and the Amazon. Rome was perched on the Tiber and controlled the fertile valleys of the volcanic mountains along the central ridge of the Italian peninsular.
Less than 3% of the world’s water is fresh. Most is locked up in polar ice and man has access to less than 1%. Water shortages are already a reality. In the coming century the agricultural sector will have to support twice as many people who currently inhabit the earth. The fresh water systems will become vastly more important and the cost of irrigating agricultural areas will rise exponentially causing a massive rise in the price of food.[/quote]
That’s a good point. Even at its pinnacle as a superpower the USSR could not feed itself and that certainly was a heavy contributor to its demise.
I wonder how this plays into the theory of the coming ascendancy of Russia, China, India and Iran. In other words will they be able to feed themselves and/or buy enough food from others?
I simply don’t know.[/quote]
US is a Net-exporter of food. That is one thing we do really well. Oil we are already exporting refined oil products to other countries. If we could start drilling on public lands we could pay off our debt, but people will want more handouts, so I would prefer to keep the oil on the down-low for now.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]2busy wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
This article is three years old by the way.
…
It failed to mention America’s booming energy sector including the largest natural gas reserves on the planet.[/quote]
I noticed that too.
[/quote]
If America finds itself awash in oil and gas before too long a lot of things could change. We are predicted to be a net exporter before too long.[/quote]
One thing people fail to take into account however, is access to fresh water. All the ancient empires existed due to hydraulic despotism - i.e. control of agriculture via exclusive control of the world’s great waterways: the Nile, the Euphrates/the Tigris, the Indus and the Amazon. Rome was perched on the Tiber and controlled the fertile valleys of the volcanic mountains along the central ridge of the Italian peninsular.
Less than 3% of the world’s water is fresh. Most is locked up in polar ice and man has access to less than 1%. Water shortages are already a reality. In the coming century the agricultural sector will have to support twice as many people who currently inhabit the earth. The fresh water systems will become vastly more important and the cost of irrigating agricultural areas will rise exponentially causing a massive rise in the price of food.[/quote]
That’s a good point. Even at its pinnacle as a superpower the USSR could not feed itself and that certainly was a heavy contributor to its demise.
I wonder how this plays into the theory of the coming ascendancy of Russia, China, India and Iran. In other words will they be able to feed themselves and/or buy enough food from others?
I simply don’t know.[/quote]
US is a Net-exporter of food. That is one thing we do really well. Oil we are already exporting refined oil products to other countries. If we could start drilling on public lands we could pay off our debt, but people will want more handouts, so I would prefer to keep the oil on the down-low for now.
[/quote]
I always had feeling that the US was not tapping into our own oil reserves to let other countries use up their supply. Maybe our government has now discovered a new energy source that is more effective than oil and they are keeping it under wraps, tap into our oil reserves to make money and pay off our debt, go into the “green” then introduce the new energy source. Boom! Merica!
[quote]mbdix wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]2busy wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
This article is three years old by the way.
…
It failed to mention America’s booming energy sector including the largest natural gas reserves on the planet.[/quote]
I noticed that too.
[/quote]
If America finds itself awash in oil and gas before too long a lot of things could change. We are predicted to be a net exporter before too long.[/quote]
One thing people fail to take into account however, is access to fresh water. All the ancient empires existed due to hydraulic despotism - i.e. control of agriculture via exclusive control of the world’s great waterways: the Nile, the Euphrates/the Tigris, the Indus and the Amazon. Rome was perched on the Tiber and controlled the fertile valleys of the volcanic mountains along the central ridge of the Italian peninsular.
Less than 3% of the world’s water is fresh. Most is locked up in polar ice and man has access to less than 1%. Water shortages are already a reality. In the coming century the agricultural sector will have to support twice as many people who currently inhabit the earth. The fresh water systems will become vastly more important and the cost of irrigating agricultural areas will rise exponentially causing a massive rise in the price of food.[/quote]
That’s a good point. Even at its pinnacle as a superpower the USSR could not feed itself and that certainly was a heavy contributor to its demise.
I wonder how this plays into the theory of the coming ascendancy of Russia, China, India and Iran. In other words will they be able to feed themselves and/or buy enough food from others?
I simply don’t know.[/quote]
US is a Net-exporter of food. That is one thing we do really well. Oil we are already exporting refined oil products to other countries. If we could start drilling on public lands we could pay off our debt, but people will want more handouts, so I would prefer to keep the oil on the down-low for now.
[/quote]
I always had feeling that the US was not tapping into our own oil reserves to let other countries use up their supply. Maybe our government has now discovered a new energy source that is more effective than oil and they are keeping it under wraps, tap into our oil reserves to make money and pay off our debt, go into the “green” then introduce the new energy source. Boom! Merica![/quote]
There has been some speculation as to whether or not that strategy would work or is being played.
More on the subject of peak oil- Peak oil - Wikipedia
There is also viable coal to liquids technology, but that doesn’t become feasible until oil prices get crazy.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Bipolarity is the most stable…
[/quote]
Yeah like Rome and Carthage…oh.[/quote]
There were other great powers at that time besides those two. [/quote]
No, not in that region. They were the two super powers of the Western Mediterranean. The same can also be said of Athens and Sparta during the Peloponnesian War. Mearsheimer’s theory that Bismarck is so enfatuated with is easily discredited by historical precedent.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Bipolarity is the most stable…
[/quote]
Yeah like Rome and Carthage…oh.[/quote]
Note that I wrote “the most stable” and not “bipolar systems NEVER lead to war!”
You seem to have a fixation on constructing straw men from my posts without assessing their overall substance.[/quote]
Actually it would be easier to argue bipolar systems are the LEAST stable based on historical precedent.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]2busy wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
This article is three years old by the way.
…
It failed to mention America’s booming energy sector including the largest natural gas reserves on the planet.[/quote]
I noticed that too.
[/quote]
If America finds itself awash in oil and gas before too long a lot of things could change. We are predicted to be a net exporter before too long.[/quote]
One thing people fail to take into account however, is access to fresh water. All the ancient empires existed due to hydraulic despotism - i.e. control of agriculture via exclusive control of the world’s great waterways: the Nile, the Euphrates/the Tigris, the Indus and the Amazon. Rome was perched on the Tiber and controlled the fertile valleys of the volcanic mountains along the central ridge of the Italian peninsular.
Less than 3% of the world’s water is fresh. Most is locked up in polar ice and man has access to less than 1%. Water shortages are already a reality. In the coming century the agricultural sector will have to support twice as many people who currently inhabit the earth. The fresh water systems will become vastly more important and the cost of irrigating agricultural areas will rise exponentially causing a massive rise in the price of food.[/quote]
That’s a good point. Even at its pinnacle as a superpower the USSR could not feed itself and that certainly was a heavy contributor to its demise.
I wonder how this plays into the theory of the coming ascendancy of Russia, China, India and Iran. In other words will they be able to feed themselves and/or buy enough food from others?
I simply don’t know.[/quote]
US is a Net-exporter of food. That is one thing we do really well. Oil we are already exporting refined oil products to other countries. If we could start drilling on public lands we could pay off our debt, but people will want more handouts, so I would prefer to keep the oil on the down-low for now.
[/quote]
I always had feeling that the US was not tapping into our own oil reserves to let other countries use up their supply. Maybe our government has now discovered a new energy source that is more effective than oil and they are keeping it under wraps, tap into our oil reserves to make money and pay off our debt, go into the “green” then introduce the new energy source. Boom! Merica![/quote]
There has been some speculation as to whether or not that strategy would work or is being played.
More on the subject of peak oil- Peak oil - Wikipedia
There is also viable coal to liquids technology, but that doesn’t become feasible until oil prices get crazy.
[/quote]
Interesting. (With my pinky finger touching the corner of my mouth)
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]2busy wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
This article is three years old by the way.
…
It failed to mention America’s booming energy sector including the largest natural gas reserves on the planet.[/quote]
I noticed that too.
[/quote]
If America finds itself awash in oil and gas before too long a lot of things could change. We are predicted to be a net exporter before too long.[/quote]
One thing people fail to take into account however, is access to fresh water. All the ancient empires existed due to hydraulic despotism - i.e. control of agriculture via exclusive control of the world’s great waterways: the Nile, the Euphrates/the Tigris, the Indus and the Amazon. Rome was perched on the Tiber and controlled the fertile valleys of the volcanic mountains along the central ridge of the Italian peninsular.
Less than 3% of the world’s water is fresh. Most is locked up in polar ice and man has access to less than 1%. Water shortages are already a reality. In the coming century the agricultural sector will have to support twice as many people who currently inhabit the earth. The fresh water systems will become vastly more important and the cost of irrigating agricultural areas will rise exponentially causing a massive rise in the price of food.[/quote]
That’s a good point. Even at its pinnacle as a superpower the USSR could not feed itself and that certainly was a heavy contributor to its demise.
I wonder how this plays into the theory of the coming ascendancy of Russia, China, India and Iran. In other words will they be able to feed themselves and/or buy enough food from others?
I simply don’t know.[/quote]
US is a Net-exporter of food. That is one thing we do really well. Oil we are already exporting refined oil products to other countries. If we could start drilling on public lands we could pay off our debt, but people will want more handouts, so I would prefer to keep the oil on the down-low for now.
[/quote]
Food needs water…
[quote]mbdix wrote:
I always had feeling that the US was not tapping into our own oil reserves to let other countries use up their supply. Maybe our government has now discovered a new energy source that is more effective than oil and they are keeping it under wraps, tap into our oil reserves to make money and pay off our debt, go into the “green” then introduce the new energy source. Boom! Merica![/quote]
Oil executives hate low gas prices. They already want to export more to prop up the price of oil here. I just can’t believe they were dumb enough to put that in writing 
http://www.kansascity.com/2013/11/16/4628350/oil-industry-considers-increasing.html
[quote]En Sabah Nur wrote:
Hell, from what I’ve been hearing, I kind of don’t want to VISIT either…[/quote]
I’m sure China is awesome.
I still have absolutely no intention to ever visit China. Ever.
Just the air pollution alone scares me.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]En Sabah Nur wrote:
Hell, from what I’ve been hearing, I kind of don’t want to VISIT either…[/quote]
I’m sure China is awesome.
I still have absolutely no intention to ever visit China. Ever.
Just the air pollution alone scares me.[/quote]
Funny video about how great China is 
