There, now you can shut up.Macbeth wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
You didn't answer the economic part or the social part.Jay wrote:
Yes I did, indirectly.
Macbeth wrote:
U.S. military hegemony has been one of the greatest things to happen to humanity.
The world economy has grown greatly since then.
None of the above factlets are necessarily linked. You're deluded if you think they are.Trade and cultural barriers have been torn down across the globe.
Its Neo-Con doctrine to have two or more powers competing against each other to cause instability and thus prevent them gathering their resources and threatening the US.Two or multiple poles of power constantly competing against each other because the U.S. pulled back from its responsibility of keeping global stability would be a massive step backwards.
I didn't even want to respond because I'm trying this whole 'don't insult everybody' thing and there was no way I could get through the post without hurling some. He did beg for it thoughUzique wrote:
i was going to quote macbeth's absolutely egregious post but then dilbert quoted the parts and said exactly what i wanted to say.
assuming that the world economy and globalisation would not have happened if not for a us 'world police' military hegemony is, quite frankly, offensive.
Right, having two poles means you get to use the other one as a bogeyman and justify oppression and outlandish military expenditures. It's the same tactic Iran uses to keep its people in check, we're their governments bogeyman.Dilbert_X wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
U.S. military hegemony has been one of the greatest things to happen to humanity.The world economy has grown greatly since then.None of the above factlets are necessarily linked. You're deluded if you think they are.Trade and cultural barriers have been torn down across the globe.Its Neo-Con doctrine to have two or more powers competing against each other to cause instability and thus prevent them gathering their resources and threatening the US.Two or multiple poles of power constantly competing against each other because the U.S. pulled back from its responsibility of keeping global stability would be a massive step backwards.
Thankyou for N/S Korea, Vietnam, Russia-Afghanistan, Iran-Iraq, Israel-ME etc etc.
Once Europe and the U.S. stopped being in world war three mode military spending dropped off in all of those countries. We received tax cuts, Euro's received huge welfare systems. It worked out pretty nicely for everyone and until 9/11 and the GWOT the Western economies were on a constant march upward. With the U.S. guaranteeing free trade through force globalization was allowed to run at full force much to the benefit of developing nations. If you can't see how U.S. hegemony protects and develops trade you need to pick up a history book.Dilbert_X wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
U.S. military hegemony has been one of the greatest things to happen to humanity.The world economy has grown greatly since then.None of the above factlets are necessarily linked. You're deluded if you think they are.Trade and cultural barriers have been torn down across the globe.Its Neo-Con doctrine to have two or more powers competing against each other to cause instability and thus prevent them gathering their resources and threatening the US.Two or multiple poles of power constantly competing against each other because the U.S. pulled back from its responsibility of keeping global stability would be a massive step backwards.
Thankyou for N/S Korea, Vietnam, Russia-Afghanistan, Iran-Iraq, Israel-ME etc etc.
You say you watch O'Reilly every night. You really think you're immune to his opinions? Clearly not.Macbeth wrote:
I'm not a neocon anyway sooo
Don't forget that most of the above have had economic sactions and blockades due to the "world policing". Some of which are still in effect.Dilbert_X wrote:
Thankyou for N/S Korea, Vietnam, Russia-Afghanistan, Iran-Iraq, Israel-ME etc etc.
Macbeth wrote:
With the U.S. guaranteeing free trade through force globalization was allowed to run at full force much to the benefit of developing nations.
Nope can't be bothered, going to the shed to bash stuff.The point is to make everyone operate like we operate. (open democracies, human rights, etc.)
Because lack a of military struggle automatically means people suddenly become interested in each other and human nature is curtailed? No it doesn't. People will still be able to compete and produce and the same things that drove them to do those things in a war market would do it in a stable peace market. Like I told Dil, read a few history books. Trade flourished and people prospered during times of peace and not in times of war.Jay wrote:
The world economy would've grown even faster in a less stable world. Stability leads to complacency and stagnation, it's the fatal flaw in all conservative economic positions.
Last edited by Macbeth (2011-12-26 16:11:46)
How did the US hovering in the background holding a big stick help?Macbeth wrote:
Because lack a of military struggle automatically means people suddenly become interested in each other and human nature is curtailed? No it doesn't. People will still be able to compete and produce and the same things that drove them to do those things in a war market would do it in a stable peace market. Like I told Dil, read a few history books. Trade flourished and people prospered during times of peace and not in times of war.Jay wrote:
The world economy would've grown even faster in a less stable world. Stability leads to complacency and stagnation, it's the fatal flaw in all conservative economic positions.
The Depression ending World War II begs to differ.Macbeth wrote:
Because lack a of military struggle automatically means people suddenly become interested in each other and human nature is curtailed? No it doesn't. People will still be able to compete and produce and the same things that drove them to do those things in a war market would do it in a stable peace market. Like I told Dil, read a few history books. Trade flourished and people prospered during times of peace and not in times of war.Jay wrote:
The world economy would've grown even faster in a less stable world. Stability leads to complacency and stagnation, it's the fatal flaw in all conservative economic positions.
Investing is risky. Investing in an unstable market is risky. Investing in overseas markets is also risky. Investing in unstable overseas markets is even more risky. Fear of losing a large investment because of someone like Hugo Chavez feels like nationalizing an industry or some African dictator decides to seize property for himself scares investment away.Dilbert_X wrote:
How did the US hovering in the background holding a big stick help?Macbeth wrote:
Because lack a of military struggle automatically means people suddenly become interested in each other and human nature is curtailed? No it doesn't. People will still be able to compete and produce and the same things that drove them to do those things in a war market would do it in a stable peace market. Like I told Dil, read a few history books. Trade flourished and people prospered during times of peace and not in times of war.Jay wrote:
The world economy would've grown even faster in a less stable world. Stability leads to complacency and stagnation, it's the fatal flaw in all conservative economic positions.
It didn't, it was irrelevant, get over it.
Last edited by Jay (2011-12-26 16:26:02)
Do I have to dig up where you said the depression didn't end because of WW2. If I recall correctly you said such in an argument against government spending when it was brought up.Jay wrote:
The Depression ending World War II begs to differ.Macbeth wrote:
Because lack a of military struggle automatically means people suddenly become interested in each other and human nature is curtailed? No it doesn't. People will still be able to compete and produce and the same things that drove them to do those things in a war market would do it in a stable peace market. Like I told Dil, read a few history books. Trade flourished and people prospered during times of peace and not in times of war.Jay wrote:
The world economy would've grown even faster in a less stable world. Stability leads to complacency and stagnation, it's the fatal flaw in all conservative economic positions.
Trade flourishes regardless of the circumstances. People generally want goods that they can't produce themselves, and will go to great lengths to secure them. Europeans spent hundreds of years and hundreds of thousands of lives just to make their food taste better. Even autocracies can't stop trade, they instead create flourishing black markets.
Am I advocating war? Absolutely not, but I firmly believe that a reduction in US defense spending is not automatically going to lead to another European arms race. They're all a bunch of giant pampered pansies now
Of course it does, but the US decreasing its military spending is not going to suddenly launch the world into World War III. That's a silly argument to make.Macbeth wrote:
Do I have to dig up where you said the depression didn't end because of WW2. If I recall correctly you said such in an argument against government spending when it was brought up.Jay wrote:
The Depression ending World War II begs to differ.Macbeth wrote:
Because lack a of military struggle automatically means people suddenly become interested in each other and human nature is curtailed? No it doesn't. People will still be able to compete and produce and the same things that drove them to do those things in a war market would do it in a stable peace market. Like I told Dil, read a few history books. Trade flourished and people prospered during times of peace and not in times of war.
Trade flourishes regardless of the circumstances. People generally want goods that they can't produce themselves, and will go to great lengths to secure them. Europeans spent hundreds of years and hundreds of thousands of lives just to make their food taste better. Even autocracies can't stop trade, they instead create flourishing black markets.
Am I advocating war? Absolutely not, but I firmly believe that a reduction in US defense spending is not automatically going to lead to another European arms race. They're all a bunch of giant pampered pansies now
My point is : Trade works better when people aren't trying to kill each other to make it happen.
Hugo Chavez didn't start his nationalization spree until the GWOT was starting to peak. The U.S. and U.N. has been active in Africa since well forever. Not everything requires a broadsword you know.Jay wrote:
Yeah, except Hugo Chavez nationalized US business investments and we didn't do anything but hem and haw. Nor have we invaded Africa.
I'm not saying it is. I have argued for decreased military spending in several areas several times. I am totally against the Ron Paul style isolationism that some people on this forum chirp on about.Jay wrote:
Of course it does, but the US decreasing its military spending is not going to suddenly launch the world into World War III. That's a silly argument to make.Macbeth wrote:
Do I have to dig up where you said the depression didn't end because of WW2. If I recall correctly you said such in an argument against government spending when it was brought up.Jay wrote:
The Depression ending World War II begs to differ.
Trade flourishes regardless of the circumstances. People generally want goods that they can't produce themselves, and will go to great lengths to secure them. Europeans spent hundreds of years and hundreds of thousands of lives just to make their food taste better. Even autocracies can't stop trade, they instead create flourishing black markets.
Am I advocating war? Absolutely not, but I firmly believe that a reduction in US defense spending is not automatically going to lead to another European arms race. They're all a bunch of giant pampered pansies now
My point is : Trade works better when people aren't trying to kill each other to make it happen.
You think the world economy depends on US overseas investment? You're wrong.Macbeth wrote:
Investing is risky. Investing in an unstable market is risky. Investing in overseas markets is also risky. Investing in unstable overseas markets is even more risky. Fear of losing a large investment because of someone like Hugo Chavez feels like nationalizing an industry or some African dictator decides to seize property for himself scares investment away.
Having the U.S. hovering in the background protecting overseas investments with military force allowed overseas investment to flourish. It reduces the overall risk involved in international trading.
