Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bobkoure
AFAICT this is a response to Kobuchi's
Yes? If so, you haven't answered his point of the US invasion being a response to this "dollar hegemony" being threatened. (apologies if I'm mis-construing this comment as a reply to that).
Back when the US was ramping up to invasion, when there were street protests before the war, this seemed like the most likely reason for this rush to war, not the series of lame reasons that we got, one after another, until it was finally "support our troops". When we get to "dollar hegemony, it's economics, of course - where there are several conflicting answers for every question 
BTW, I'm a fiscal conservative, too. How exactly is the current administration being fiscally conservative? Or do you figure the point of deflating the dollar to be an attempt to reverse the current balance of trade? Didn't we once have a balanced budget? Where'd that go? |
Sorry war for dollar hegemony is lunacy. There is a left or a right wing conspiracy theory for why the sun comes up every morning. Wars cost billions and there are no guarantees…as a pure accounting exercise you will loose every time.
Canada is the largest supplier of oil to the United States…let me say that again Canada is the largest supplier of oil to the United States. Now all together, Canada is the largest supplier of oil to the United States.
The top five largest importers of oil to the US account for 71% of all oil imported and only one is in Southwest Asia (Middle East for old school). Two are just South of the United States one is obviously just North. The fifth country is in Sub-Saharan Africa. The dollar hegemony doesn’t stand to the realities of the oil trade. If we really wanted to get our hands on oil, we could just take down Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. Hell the Cub Scouts could take down Canada with a Hockey stick and a six-pack of Labatt Blue.
Despite the present shrinking dollar, our economy is still the most productive in the world. Moreover, will continue to be so in the next century. Look by, 2020 30% of China's population will be over 60 and a third of young males will have not possibility of reproduction due to the imbalance of men to women. 60 is well past productive years for a 2nd world country and I’d say it is likely that a third of the male population will move out of China. Japan and France will have an even larger percentage over 60 the rest of Europe looks much like France. Africa...is largely dying of HIV and I don't say that to be glib, it is a real tragedy. Futility rates in Latin America are below replacement levels and the Middle East has the lowest reproduction rates on the planet. What does this mean? Most of the worlds populations will not have an opportunity to gain wealth before the become old. While most other nations are currently, at there respective economic peeks and can expect to loose productivity over the next 50 years. On the other hand, America has a well educated largely stable population our mean age will max out at 39. This means our economy will remain strong and highly productive compared with all other nations.
I think that the present administration is relying too heavily on economic growth to bring down the deficit. The shrinking dollar is reversing the trade deficit, how much will be the question. Right now, the French are screaming bloody murder because they are being killed on exports to the US. In the mean time, many EU investors are buying up property in NYC. As I said in the previous post, we played this same game with Japan. Everyone said the Japanese were going to own America….
You are correct we did have a balanced budget at one time and I would like to see us go back to a balanced budget. However, the present deficit is largely due to tax cuts. I think it is good logic to assume tax cuts stimulate growth but I think you have to cut programs with taxes. The military budget is very streamlined even for a war (just a percent over the Clinton Budget), what do you cut fellow fiscal conservative.