Is This Who We Really Are?

[Pidgey]

Perhaps our $623 billion military budget in relation to the military budgets of the rest of the world at $500 billion is one of the things that should be factored into the discussion.

Kinda' requires a longer answer than I've currently got the time for...

In short, though, a country needs only as much military as is required to protect its boundaries and maintain its "interests" in the world outside its physical boundaries. I guess you could say that we'd need a lot less and could therefore downsize it substantially as long as we're willing to give up the cheap imports, energy and other necessary value-added's and raw materials that we're essentially extorting. Go ahead... go for it and see where it gets you.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Kinda' requires a longer answer than I've currently got the time for...

In short, though, a country needs only as much military as is required to protect its boundaries and maintain its "interests" in the world outside its physical boundaries. I guess you could say that we'd need a lot less and could therefore downsize it substantially as long as we're willing to give up the cheap imports, energy and other necessary value-added's and raw materials that we're essentially extorting. Go ahead... go for it and see where it gets you.

It seems that you are suggesting that the way we are conducting our national affairs is the ONLY way that they can be conducted and still be in the best interest of the country. I don't think that's true, preying on others is hardly a valuable long-term policy in light of what we know of human history. Empires always crumble under their own weight.

 

[Pidgey]

It seems that you are suggesting that the way we are conducting our national affairs is the ONLY way that they can be conducted and still be in the best interest of the country. I don't think that's true, preying on others is hardly a valuable long-term policy in light of what we know of human history. Empires always crumble under their own weight.

Not at all, but how do you define "the best interest of the country"? I've lived my life knowing from the '70s that it (our economy) was going to wind down due to simple thermodynamics. That said, I haven't had any kids and I've made a habit of collecting skills for surviving in a Little House on the Prairie world. BUT... that doesn't interfere with my day job as an engineer.

I'm okay with switching from BAU (Business As Usual) to a more sustainable model. It's most of the rest of you who actually aren't but just don't know it. It seems to be a flaw of not correctly analyzing how things work, especially the economy in toto. Frankly, though... it's GOING to collapse and there's not a d@mn thing you can do about it. And for essentially the same reason that all the other empires have collapsed, each in their own turn: a growing imbalance of energy imports versus energy expenditures. This time, though, a very large portion of the earth will suffer the same fate due to following us in their economic models.

What most folks think of as the "prosperity" during the Clinton years was a change in the rules that allowed personal debt to rise while the country's debt kinda' leveled off. But, either way, it was still debt, or "pulled forward demand"--an increase of finance economy with respect to real economy. The true net effect of "going greener" or whatever you want to call it WILL be more and more people and corps defaulting their debts.

As far as "preying on others" goes, everybody does to some extent and far more than they know--bought anything cheap from China lately? Then you're guilty as charged...

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Not at all, but how do you define "the best interest of the country"? I've lived my life knowing from the '70s that it (our economy) was going to wind down due to simple thermodynamics. That said, I haven't had any kids and I've made a habit of collecting skills for surviving in a Little House on the Prairie world. BUT... that doesn't interfere with my day job as an engineer.

I'm okay with switching from BAU (Business As Usual) to a more sustainable model. It's most of the rest of you who actually aren't but just don't know it. It seems to be a flaw of not correctly analyzing how things work, especially the economy in toto. Frankly, though... it's GOING to collapse and there's not a d@mn thing you can do about it. And for essentially the same reason that all the other empires have collapsed, each in their own turn: a growing imbalance of energy imports versus energy expenditures. This time, though, a very large portion of the earth will suffer the same fate due to following us in their economic models.

What most folks think of as the "prosperity" during the Clinton years was a change in the rules that allowed personal debt to rise while the country's debt kinda' leveled off. But, either way, it was still debt, or "pulled forward demand"--an increase of finance economy with respect to real economy. The true net effect of "going greener" or whatever you want to call it WILL be more and more people and corps defaulting their debts.

As far as "preying on others" goes, everybody does to some extent and far more than they know--bought anything cheap from China lately? Then you're guilty as charged...

Carefully thoughtout, well presented, but if there is nothing to be done... then I guess all we can do is just sit back and enjoy the show. I never claimed to be perfect, Pidge, I am embedded in a system that runs on mutual predations.

 

[Pidgey]

It would seem so. I think it most likely that most folks wouldn't naturally CHOOSE to predate others... it's usually hoisted upon them by circumstances. For instance, what would have been required to have foreseen Peak Oil in the US and to have guided the economy and population to power down and start creating non-industrial based communities with localized economies? Crap... that'd have been political suicide! We're talkin' tarred & feathered and run out of town on a rail. M. King Hubbert (nice Wiki on him) DID foresee the peak of American oil production as far back as '56 and nailed it to a period between '65 and '70. He was proved right.

What you might remember as the oil and energy crisis of the '70s was ONLY the beginning of the catastrophe for us. Thus it was that we followed The City (City of London--global high finance) in earnest and attempted to improve upon the template...

Anyhow, one of the side effects of making civilization safer and providing more food is that you inevitably grow your population. "Make love, not war." The result of more population is a greater need for food and all the other stuff. Whenever resource diminishes relative to population, for whatever reason, predation occurs. In some places, this reaches an equilibrium condition where too much reproduction ends up causing a steady-state war condition.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It would seem so. I think it most likely that most folks wouldn't naturally CHOOSE to predate others... it's usually hoisted upon them by circumstances. For instance, what would have been required to have foreseen Peak Oil in the US and to have guided the economy and population to power down and start creating non-industrial based communities with localized economies? Crap... that'd have been political suicide! We're talkin' tarred & feathered and run out of town on a rail. M. King Hubbert (nice Wiki on him) DID foresee the peak of American oil production as far back as '56 and nailed it to a period between '65 and '70. He was proved right.

What you might remember as the oil and energy crisis of the '70s was ONLY the beginning of the catastrophe for us. Thus it was that we followed The City (City of London--global high finance) in earnest and attempted to improve upon the template...

Anyhow, one of the side effects of making civilization safer and providing more food is that you inevitably grow your population. "Make love, not war." The result of more population is a greater need for food and all the other stuff. Whenever resource diminishes relative to population, for whatever reason, predation occurs. In some places, this reaches an equilibrium condition where too much reproduction ends up causing a steady-state war condition.

I suspect that we will die out as a specie, we simply aren't smart enough to overcome our predeliction for violence. Certainly America will be destroyed like all other imperial powers have been--people just can't seem to learn from the mistakes of others or their own mistakes either.

 

[Pidgey]

Well, collapse, anyhow.

 

[top gun]

The Canadians seem to have an interesting take on our health care debate.



I'd like to see a survey of Canadians, as well as people of Britain and Australia asking how many would trade their system for what we have in the US.

I'd be willing to bet the results would be overwhelmingly in favor of keeping their system, wouldn't you?

Yes...


THE BELLINGHAM HERALD
Canadians do like their health care


Recently, those opposed to a public health insurance plan - which would offer the possibility for everyone to be covered - tend to throw out unsubstantiated clams about Canadians not liking their health-care system. Without documentation, what is the basis for these claims?

On the other hand, recent polls show how Canadians truly feel. According to a recent Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey, 82 percent of Canadians believe their system is better than U.S. health-care. Also, the same poll shows that 70 percent of Canadians think their health-care system is working either well, or very well.

In addition, a new Ipsos/McClatchy online poll found that 65 percent of Canadians said they had access to all the health care services they needed at costs they could afford; in contrast, only 49 percent of Americans felt that way.


Universal health care is feasible in the U.S. It has been shown that it works for the vast majority of Canadians.