|
The logical inference is the US still has the strongest economy in the world. As more chinese rise above poverty, the pressure on demand should have their living cost skyrocket, putting an end to cheap labor.
Quick technological development like Japan or South Korea is unfeasible while competing against both and without western aid in the context of the Cold War, so the alternative is to stop the rise by funneling wealth to the ruling class, which leads to social unrest. Said unrest is controlled through preventing the spread of information, but every time a bureaucrat takes his BMW for a spin, a bunch of people gets pissed that they have to ride a bike to work.
China is a timebomb about whether that unrest can be controlled until the economy develops to a level it can beat the rest of the world without devaluing the currency, therefore earning the privilege the US currently have of being the world's central bank. The key to achieve that is military expense, either to frighten the people or ideally, have them proud of their country being the most powerful in the world so they ignore their deep seated issues. Sounds familiar? And just last century when two countries attempted to do that, what ensued? Cold war. Not a bright prospect for the future, from either side.
|
Heliusx to China: Stop violating the humans rights of 1/5 of the human population.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
I sometimes don't get people who just blindly comment. But here are my thoughts on this.
Was what the person in China said wrong to begin with? Just because it came from China who some view as an "enemy of your economy" doesn't mean it is wrong.
You blame the migration of jobs and manufacturing elsewhere on your woes but wouldn't a local/federal policy solve that? Wasn't that the issue before that was confronted by the European car brands when they were facing up against the Japanese brands? They required the said items be manufactured in a European country or face a higher tax rate. The solution Japanese brands went with was build factories in Europe to make their cars not receive a higher tax rate.
It is all politcal anyway so just because companies moved their workforce or manufacturing to another country doesn't make that country evil or bad. It just means that it was more logical from a business standpoint to move it there.
If you go by the logic then our what Europe did for their car industry, you could then give the company a choice as to what amounts to being competitive in the American market. The higher tax of items from abroad would mean more taxes received by the government through sale to use for whatever they deem fit. Moving it to the States on the other hand, gives you employment and at the same time a lower taxed item manufactured locally in your country.
So either of the two choices still work for you as Americans, wouldn't it. There doesn't need to be a blaming game here, you just need to take action. If you take in more debt that what you can pay, of course you will eventually cripple yourself, either just by being unable to pay or just being able to pay the interest alone.
It makes sense if you think about it and disregard any bias you may have for a country.
|
"is this any way to treat your banker"
Is a bit bold imo... considering the 'banker' in this context would be pretty much 'SOL' if the USA didn't do well. Not a news flash but if the US went down, every other country would as well - china's economy was linked and they entrenched themselves in that link to the US.
If the Chinese are fed up with our democracy then it should stop buying our bonds and put pressure on us, but it hasn't and it won't.
Silly article is silly - but I find it amusing and interesting, which is what media is here to do these days anyways.
I always tell people if you want to change anything you need to start small, everyone has grandiose plans on how to change or fix the world. You can never do that by posting even the simplest and most intelligent comment online. Get active in your own community and start to make a difference - no matter how small the initial impact, if you believe something - chances are others do as well.
|
On January 05 2013 10:08 RinconH wrote:
lol why wouldn't the U.S. print money?
They have the license to print gold.
U.S. currency is Gold. The entire world depends on it and that's not going to change any time soon.
China can keep complaining... and keep buying billions of treasuries.
You do realize this not only bad for everyone else, but also bad for most of the US citizens. There is no way many not so hard working or even decently hard working us citizens will earn more money to overcome inflation, hence its just rich getting richer and poor getting poorer.
|
On January 05 2013 16:15 17Sphynx17 wrote:
I sometimes don't get people who just blindly comment. But here are my thoughts on this.
Was what the person in China said wrong to begin with? Just because it came from China who some view as an "enemy of your economy" doesn't mean it is wrong.
You blame the migration of jobs and manufacturing elsewhere on your woes but wouldn't a local/federal policy solve that? Wasn't that the issue before that was confronted by the European car brands when they were facing up against the Japanese brands? They required the said items be manufactured in a European country or face a higher tax rate. The solution Japanese brands went with was build factories in Europe to make their cars not receive a higher tax rate.
It is all politcal anyway so just because companies moved their workforce or manufacturing to another country doesn't make that country evil or bad. It just means that it was more logical from a business standpoint to move it there.
If you go by the logic then our what Europe did for their car industry, you could then give the company a choice as to what amounts to being competitive in the American market. The higher tax of items from abroad would mean more taxes received by the government through sale to use for whatever they deem fit. Moving it to the States on the other hand, gives you employment and at the same time a lower taxed item manufactured locally in your country.
So either of the two choices still work for you as Americans, wouldn't it. There doesn't need to be a blaming game here, you just need to take action. If you take in more debt that what you can pay, of course you will eventually cripple yourself, either just by being unable to pay or just being able to pay the interest alone.
It makes sense if you think about it and disregard any bias you may have for a country.
Sounds like a tariff and I don't think starting another trade war is the brightest thing to do.
|
On January 05 2013 10:08 RinconH wrote:
lol why wouldn't the U.S. print money?
They have the license to print gold.
U.S. currency is Gold. The entire world depends on it and that's not going to change any time soon.
China can keep complaining... and keep buying billions of treasuries.
Currency collapses do not happen overnight but we are seeing a steady diminishing of the USD purchasing power.Gold was USD$300 back in 2000 and now it is around USD$1700.Back in the early 1970s when the dollar was backed by gold the price of gold was USD$35.Just because something is true today does not mean it will be true in one, five or ten years time.
Also the top holder of US treasuries is now the US Federal Reserve and not China.Basically the FED is printing money and using it to buy US treasuries and bonds.How can you claim that is sustainable? The situation is getting worse not better.
|
On January 05 2013 18:39 yandere991 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 05 2013 16:15 17Sphynx17 wrote:
I sometimes don't get people who just blindly comment. But here are my thoughts on this.
Was what the person in China said wrong to begin with? Just because it came from China who some view as an "enemy of your economy" doesn't mean it is wrong.
You blame the migration of jobs and manufacturing elsewhere on your woes but wouldn't a local/federal policy solve that? Wasn't that the issue before that was confronted by the European car brands when they were facing up against the Japanese brands? They required the said items be manufactured in a European country or face a higher tax rate. The solution Japanese brands went with was build factories in Europe to make their cars not receive a higher tax rate.
It is all politcal anyway so just because companies moved their workforce or manufacturing to another country doesn't make that country evil or bad. It just means that it was more logical from a business standpoint to move it there.
If you go by the logic then our what Europe did for their car industry, you could then give the company a choice as to what amounts to being competitive in the American market. The higher tax of items from abroad would mean more taxes received by the government through sale to use for whatever they deem fit. Moving it to the States on the other hand, gives you employment and at the same time a lower taxed item manufactured locally in your country.
So either of the two choices still work for you as Americans, wouldn't it. There doesn't need to be a blaming game here, you just need to take action. If you take in more debt that what you can pay, of course you will eventually cripple yourself, either just by being unable to pay or just being able to pay the interest alone.
It makes sense if you think about it and disregard any bias you may have for a country. Sounds like a tariff and I don't think starting another trade war is the brightest thing to do.
True, but sometimes, there are just things that need to be done. Other than spending cuts, restructing spending etc, you have to find a way to either drive companies to start producing within the US or just basically tax whatever is coming in because your current revenue stream from taxes is not going to cut it.
The US is a major consumer market that quite a few companies want to be part of. And if they risk being undercut by local manufactured products because of their higher tax, they would reconsider building a manufacturing site within the territory as well.
Granted its not going to be quick, but I think it needs to be done to drive the local economy.
|
Shen has a valid point, but coming from China I can't help but feel an ironic undertone in it, as only one party holds all power in China, struggles as seen between the Democrats and Republicans are not possible in the first place.
Anyways, the fierce struggles in the upper levels of the politics in the u.s.a. are only natural as they reflect large gaps running through the different political opinions in the population. I myself am very interested to see how things will flatten out in the end.
|
On January 05 2013 20:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 10:08 RinconH wrote:
lol why wouldn't the U.S. print money?
They have the license to print gold.
U.S. currency is Gold. The entire world depends on it and that's not going to change any time soon.
China can keep complaining... and keep buying billions of treasuries. Currency collapses do not happen overnight but we are seeing a steady diminishing of the USD purchasing power.Gold was USD$300 back in 2000 and now it is around USD$1700.Back in the early 1970s when the dollar was backed by gold the price of gold was USD$35.Just because something is true today does not mean it will be true in one, five or ten years time. Also the top holder of US treasuries is now the US Federal Reserve and not China.Basically the FED is printing money and using it to buy US treasuries and bonds.How can you claim that is sustainable? The situation is getting worse not better.
You sure our purchasing power has been going down steadily? When I take $2,000 from 1970 and apply it to 2012, well, I've got more money! (Even from 2000 to 2012, it grew!)
Why would the government do something that is unsustainable? Do they not know what they are doing? (How did they get into a position if they didn't know what they were doing?) Do they hate America? Do they just not care? Why wouldn't the government take the steps necessary to ensure the survival of this nation?
The rounds of quantitative easing have been to combat hyper-deflation. Some people will literally start yelling at you in the face in the real world if you present them with this. (If this happens, don't present the facts, because you may be strangled beyond death.) November's rate was 1.8, with our target being either 2 or 2.2%
|
On January 05 2013 21:31 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 20:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On January 05 2013 10:08 RinconH wrote:
lol why wouldn't the U.S. print money?
They have the license to print gold.
U.S. currency is Gold. The entire world depends on it and that's not going to change any time soon.
China can keep complaining... and keep buying billions of treasuries. Currency collapses do not happen overnight but we are seeing a steady diminishing of the USD purchasing power.Gold was USD$300 back in 2000 and now it is around USD$1700.Back in the early 1970s when the dollar was backed by gold the price of gold was USD$35.Just because something is true today does not mean it will be true in one, five or ten years time. Also the top holder of US treasuries is now the US Federal Reserve and not China.Basically the FED is printing money and using it to buy US treasuries and bonds.How can you claim that is sustainable? The situation is getting worse not better. You sure our purchasing power has been going down steadily? When I take $2,000 from 1970 and apply it to 2012, well, I've got more money! (Even from 2000 to 2012, it grew!) Why would the government do something that is unsustainable? Do they not know what they are doing? (How did they get into a position if they didn't know what they were doing?) Do they hate America? Do they just not care? Why wouldn't the government take the steps necessary to ensure the survival of this nation? The rounds of quantitative easing have been to combat hyper-deflation. Some people will literally start yelling at you in the face in the real world if you present them with this. (If this happens, don't present the facts, because you may be strangled beyond death.) November's rate was 1.8, with our target being either 2 or 2.2%
But... But... THE PRICE OF GOLD IS REALLY HIGH! Certainly inflation is skyrocketing and we're about to have to burn money instead of firewood or gas!
|
On January 05 2013 22:36 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 21:31 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On January 05 2013 20:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On January 05 2013 10:08 RinconH wrote:
lol why wouldn't the U.S. print money?
They have the license to print gold.
U.S. currency is Gold. The entire world depends on it and that's not going to change any time soon.
China can keep complaining... and keep buying billions of treasuries. Currency collapses do not happen overnight but we are seeing a steady diminishing of the USD purchasing power.Gold was USD$300 back in 2000 and now it is around USD$1700.Back in the early 1970s when the dollar was backed by gold the price of gold was USD$35.Just because something is true today does not mean it will be true in one, five or ten years time. Also the top holder of US treasuries is now the US Federal Reserve and not China.Basically the FED is printing money and using it to buy US treasuries and bonds.How can you claim that is sustainable? The situation is getting worse not better. You sure our purchasing power has been going down steadily? When I take $2,000 from 1970 and apply it to 2012, well, I've got more money! (Even from 2000 to 2012, it grew!) Why would the government do something that is unsustainable? Do they not know what they are doing? (How did they get into a position if they didn't know what they were doing?) Do they hate America? Do they just not care? Why wouldn't the government take the steps necessary to ensure the survival of this nation? The rounds of quantitative easing have been to combat hyper-deflation. Some people will literally start yelling at you in the face in the real world if you present them with this. (If this happens, don't present the facts, because you may be strangled beyond death.) November's rate was 1.8, with our target being either 2 or 2.2% But... But... THE PRICE OF GOLD IS REALLY HIGH! Certainly inflation is skyrocketing and we're about to have to burn money instead of firewood or gas!
And you've got people like George Soros saying they will be buying gold. Who the fuck lets the world know that they will be buying up gold in massive quantities? Do they feel like paying a higher price for no reason, cutting profits massively? If anything, he's selling gold. He didn't make $1B in one month by telling everyone what he was up to.
We can also look at GDP numbers, since these things get people really fucking pissed off in real life. I like pissing people off.
(I know you're not mad, though.)
|
On January 05 2013 22:36 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 21:31 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On January 05 2013 20:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On January 05 2013 10:08 RinconH wrote:
lol why wouldn't the U.S. print money?
They have the license to print gold.
U.S. currency is Gold. The entire world depends on it and that's not going to change any time soon.
China can keep complaining... and keep buying billions of treasuries. Currency collapses do not happen overnight but we are seeing a steady diminishing of the USD purchasing power.Gold was USD$300 back in 2000 and now it is around USD$1700.Back in the early 1970s when the dollar was backed by gold the price of gold was USD$35.Just because something is true today does not mean it will be true in one, five or ten years time. Also the top holder of US treasuries is now the US Federal Reserve and not China.Basically the FED is printing money and using it to buy US treasuries and bonds.How can you claim that is sustainable? The situation is getting worse not better. You sure our purchasing power has been going down steadily? When I take $2,000 from 1970 and apply it to 2012, well, I've got more money! (Even from 2000 to 2012, it grew!) Why would the government do something that is unsustainable? Do they not know what they are doing? (How did they get into a position if they didn't know what they were doing?) Do they hate America? Do they just not care? Why wouldn't the government take the steps necessary to ensure the survival of this nation? The rounds of quantitative easing have been to combat hyper-deflation. Some people will literally start yelling at you in the face in the real world if you present them with this. (If this happens, don't present the facts, because you may be strangled beyond death.) November's rate was 1.8, with our target being either 2 or 2.2% But... But... THE PRICE OF GOLD IS REALLY HIGH! Certainly inflation is skyrocketing and we're about to have to burn money instead of firewood or gas!
Exactly, the inflation of the past 20 years has been in assets and commodities - not consumer products.
|
On January 06 2013 02:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 22:36 aksfjh wrote:On January 05 2013 21:31 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On January 05 2013 20:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On January 05 2013 10:08 RinconH wrote:
lol why wouldn't the U.S. print money?
They have the license to print gold.
U.S. currency is Gold. The entire world depends on it and that's not going to change any time soon.
China can keep complaining... and keep buying billions of treasuries. Currency collapses do not happen overnight but we are seeing a steady diminishing of the USD purchasing power.Gold was USD$300 back in 2000 and now it is around USD$1700.Back in the early 1970s when the dollar was backed by gold the price of gold was USD$35.Just because something is true today does not mean it will be true in one, five or ten years time. Also the top holder of US treasuries is now the US Federal Reserve and not China.Basically the FED is printing money and using it to buy US treasuries and bonds.How can you claim that is sustainable? The situation is getting worse not better. You sure our purchasing power has been going down steadily? When I take $2,000 from 1970 and apply it to 2012, well, I've got more money! (Even from 2000 to 2012, it grew!) Why would the government do something that is unsustainable? Do they not know what they are doing? (How did they get into a position if they didn't know what they were doing?) Do they hate America? Do they just not care? Why wouldn't the government take the steps necessary to ensure the survival of this nation? The rounds of quantitative easing have been to combat hyper-deflation. Some people will literally start yelling at you in the face in the real world if you present them with this. (If this happens, don't present the facts, because you may be strangled beyond death.) November's rate was 1.8, with our target being either 2 or 2.2% But... But... THE PRICE OF GOLD IS REALLY HIGH! Certainly inflation is skyrocketing and we're about to have to burn money instead of firewood or gas! Exactly, the inflation of the past 20 years has been in assets and commodities - not consumer products.
Oh, I see. So inflation has only hit things of severely limited supply. I doubt increased global demand for those same products has increases, so it MUST be the money supply.
|
On January 06 2013 03:39 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 02:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 05 2013 22:36 aksfjh wrote:On January 05 2013 21:31 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On January 05 2013 20:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On January 05 2013 10:08 RinconH wrote:
lol why wouldn't the U.S. print money?
They have the license to print gold.
U.S. currency is Gold. The entire world depends on it and that's not going to change any time soon.
China can keep complaining... and keep buying billions of treasuries. Currency collapses do not happen overnight but we are seeing a steady diminishing of the USD purchasing power.Gold was USD$300 back in 2000 and now it is around USD$1700.Back in the early 1970s when the dollar was backed by gold the price of gold was USD$35.Just because something is true today does not mean it will be true in one, five or ten years time. Also the top holder of US treasuries is now the US Federal Reserve and not China.Basically the FED is printing money and using it to buy US treasuries and bonds.How can you claim that is sustainable? The situation is getting worse not better. You sure our purchasing power has been going down steadily? When I take $2,000 from 1970 and apply it to 2012, well, I've got more money! (Even from 2000 to 2012, it grew!) Why would the government do something that is unsustainable? Do they not know what they are doing? (How did they get into a position if they didn't know what they were doing?) Do they hate America? Do they just not care? Why wouldn't the government take the steps necessary to ensure the survival of this nation? The rounds of quantitative easing have been to combat hyper-deflation. Some people will literally start yelling at you in the face in the real world if you present them with this. (If this happens, don't present the facts, because you may be strangled beyond death.) November's rate was 1.8, with our target being either 2 or 2.2% But... But... THE PRICE OF GOLD IS REALLY HIGH! Certainly inflation is skyrocketing and we're about to have to burn money instead of firewood or gas! Exactly, the inflation of the past 20 years has been in assets and commodities - not consumer products. Oh, I see. So inflation has only hit things of severely limited supply. I doubt increased global demand for those same products has increases, so it MUST be the money supply.
The world had a severely limited supply of houses and auto factories too?
|
On January 04 2013 09:04 a_flayer wrote:
It really is ridiculous beyond words the way this (US politics) has been proceeding.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PFt3l.jpg)
Cool story bro. Would you like to say anything specific or do you just dislike America because it's the cool thing to do these days in Europe.
Things like these are a side-effect of politics, which are a part of democracy. It isn't ideal but the alternatives are way worse, as far as I'm concerned. Although the Chinese appear to disagree with that, "Frankly, China is fed up with the performance of U.S. democracy." I really don't think China has the right to lecture anyone when it comes to democracy.
Don't get me wrong though I don't see any problem with criticizing the U.S. government for playing with the world economy for political gain.
User was warned for this post
|
On January 05 2013 07:01 nolook wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 06:51 czylu wrote:On January 05 2013 06:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 05 2013 04:45 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:On January 05 2013 03:06 Velr wrote:
What i find fun when looking at the "high taxes BAAD" people is that facts seem to just plain disagree with you?
Sweden went well thru the whole crisis.
Denmark too.
Is there any 1st World "socialist" country, in which the people actually pay their taxes, that struggles badly?
.
Most first World countries with high taxes and expensive/strong social services went thru this whole crisis whiteout big problems... Yet you demonize socialism high tax/high social services (which you call entitlements, wtf?) just because... I have no Idea.. Pure unfounded ideology? Yeah. Even the US itself used to have much higher tax rates, up to 94% in 1944, for the biggest part of the last century until the 80s. Despite financing two world wars, being in dept with 120% of GDP after WW2, helping to rebuild Germany and Europe after the 2nd world war and burning a lot of money during the arms race with Russia and cold war they still experienced something like a golden age during that time. I must admit I don't know a lot about the US economic history and surely there are other factors, but can this be pure coincidence? Very few were affected by those high rates and rebuilding Europe helped the economy - lots for our factories to do and no competitors. There were also demographics at play. The working age population was booming whereas now the retired population is booming. The main causes of our current deficit can be traced back to the policies of 2 presidents, LBJ and Reagan. LBJ's Great Society created a literal shit ton of government agencies designed to protect the poor and needy, such as Medicare(and later Medicaid) along with a broad spectrum of educational and social initiatives designed to improve social mobility. Back then, because of the massive scope of these programs, they were often poorly implemented and barely fit with in the government budget. Flash forward to Reagan, in an effort to kill the cold war, Reagan followed the policy of deficit spending by upping the spending on Military, while diminishing taxes on the wealthiest Americans(which in practice is basically just corporations). This massive influx of capital into both government military research and private enterprise is what ultimately killed the Soviet Union, because they(under the rules of a balanced budget) did not have the resources to support both a military arms race and maintain a first world standard of living, while fighting a losing war in Afghanistan. If Khrushchev had a similar idea when the US was sinking resources into Vietnam, I'm sure we'd all be singing praises to the Soviet Union today. By reducing revenue while upping spending to kill the Soviets, Reagan put the deficit in a downward spiral that has grown into the fiscal cliff we know today. Anyway, flash forward to today, and we see the modern iterations of both parties fighting to the death over the policies of LBJ and Reagan. The democrats want their social programs like it was still 1960 and Republicans want their tax breaks like it was still 1980, and in the crossfire lies the american people and the global financial system. This has to be the craziest interpretation of USSR collapse I've ever heard. Do you actually believe in this? lol!
So, pray tell. What DID cause the collapse of the Soviet Union, if not economic and military pressure exerted from US policy?
|
|
|
On January 06 2013 08:35 czylu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 07:01 nolook wrote:On January 05 2013 06:51 czylu wrote:On January 05 2013 06:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 05 2013 04:45 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:On January 05 2013 03:06 Velr wrote:
What i find fun when looking at the "high taxes BAAD" people is that facts seem to just plain disagree with you?
Sweden went well thru the whole crisis.
Denmark too.
Is there any 1st World "socialist" country, in which the people actually pay their taxes, that struggles badly?
.
Most first World countries with high taxes and expensive/strong social services went thru this whole crisis whiteout big problems... Yet you demonize socialism high tax/high social services (which you call entitlements, wtf?) just because... I have no Idea.. Pure unfounded ideology? Yeah. Even the US itself used to have much higher tax rates, up to 94% in 1944, for the biggest part of the last century until the 80s. Despite financing two world wars, being in dept with 120% of GDP after WW2, helping to rebuild Germany and Europe after the 2nd world war and burning a lot of money during the arms race with Russia and cold war they still experienced something like a golden age during that time. I must admit I don't know a lot about the US economic history and surely there are other factors, but can this be pure coincidence? Very few were affected by those high rates and rebuilding Europe helped the economy - lots for our factories to do and no competitors. There were also demographics at play. The working age population was booming whereas now the retired population is booming. The main causes of our current deficit can be traced back to the policies of 2 presidents, LBJ and Reagan. LBJ's Great Society created a literal shit ton of government agencies designed to protect the poor and needy, such as Medicare(and later Medicaid) along with a broad spectrum of educational and social initiatives designed to improve social mobility. Back then, because of the massive scope of these programs, they were often poorly implemented and barely fit with in the government budget. Flash forward to Reagan, in an effort to kill the cold war, Reagan followed the policy of deficit spending by upping the spending on Military, while diminishing taxes on the wealthiest Americans(which in practice is basically just corporations). This massive influx of capital into both government military research and private enterprise is what ultimately killed the Soviet Union, because they(under the rules of a balanced budget) did not have the resources to support both a military arms race and maintain a first world standard of living, while fighting a losing war in Afghanistan. If Khrushchev had a similar idea when the US was sinking resources into Vietnam, I'm sure we'd all be singing praises to the Soviet Union today. By reducing revenue while upping spending to kill the Soviets, Reagan put the deficit in a downward spiral that has grown into the fiscal cliff we know today. Anyway, flash forward to today, and we see the modern iterations of both parties fighting to the death over the policies of LBJ and Reagan. The democrats want their social programs like it was still 1960 and Republicans want their tax breaks like it was still 1980, and in the crossfire lies the american people and the global financial system. This has to be the craziest interpretation of USSR collapse I've ever heard. Do you actually believe in this? lol! So, pray tell. What DID cause the collapse of the Soviet Union, if not economic and military pressure exerted from US policy?
The collapse of the USSR is primarily political, although economics do play a role, it is secondary to the well intentioned but badly executed reforms attempted by Gorbachev, and karma, imo.
|
I really hope that the US doesn't go under, but really it's its own damned fault if it does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
