How long can the US last as the Universal Empire - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

crash9 · #1 04-26-2004, 12:00 PM

These thoughts are drawn form a piece written by Prof. Joseph Olson that I was sent.

“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During the 200 years these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”
“THE FALL OF THE ATHENIAN REPUBLIC
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that the can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.”

I realize that we’re not set up as a true democracy, but there seem many things in his words to think about. Bondage takes on many forms. It seems to me that by the very design of our economy is dependent on keeping consumers bound into debt that very small percentages of the population are able to break away from. I’ve kept referring to the “Peak Oil” thread that nobody seems interested in. the quote I’m focused on is:
“If the per capita energy consumption in the developing world were to reach only 50% of that consumed by the citizens of industrialized nations, and if everyone in the prosperous industrialized nations were to conserve themselves down to that same level, energy production worldwide would have to double” NOT GONNA HAPPEN
Putting it all together – what do you think??

Botnst · #2 04-26-2004, 12:03 PM

The USA is not an empire.

The USA has no empire aspirations. In fact, the USA has actively engaged in bringing political and economic power to people oppressed around the plane and then treat them as equals in every sense.

Aside from that, I see the analogy.

B

crash9 · #3 04-26-2004, 12:14 PM

Empire – bad choice of words, but “Universal Empire” was the term used in a chart I once saw that described the dominant player on the world stage. I think you could say that the US didn’t actually attain that status until after WWI, certainly after WWII. That’s not what I’m focused on – it’s the rock and a hard place that we’re in economically; and the need to quickly find a new technology, as an energy source.

Botnst · #4 04-26-2004, 02:13 PM

I get hung-up on the use of teh word, "Empire". It doesn't mean big and powerful or even largest and most powerful. It means being able to impose will. I'm sure somebody's latin is beter than mine but I think it comes from a latin root word meaning he who gives orders that must be obeyed. Like your wife, say.

Thus, the Roman Empire was in fact, an empire. The British almost atained imperial status but those pesky French kept messin' around.

Within the borders of the USSR, it was an empire, but not outside its borders. Though it had pretentions.

In contrast, the USA has acted in imperial fashion only in response to war or threat of war. Afterwards, in every case, the USA has relinquished its imperial power. Though in the case of the Philipines, it was long-delayed and unintentionally forced by Japan. One could argue that Hawaii and (as FALN does) that Puerto Rico is still part of the evil empire. But most of that is historicallly accurate but according to polls, moot. It looks like our imperial will is more akin to a greyhound than a lion--witness how quickly we seek to exit our newest vassal states of Afghanistan and Iraq. Anybody want to be a colonist in the new Iraq? Show of hands? If we're in charge of Iraq and our ambition is to control oil, then why is OPEC-agreed prices and quotas governing world prices--oh I know, Cheney sets the prices!

Foiled again!

B

crash9 · #5 04-26-2004, 02:48 PM

OK, Sorry, Empire was somebody else’s word. Let me restate the question. How long can the US remain at the top of the “Heap”? How and why?

rickg · #6 04-26-2004, 02:55 PM

Actually not a democracy either (mob ruled)
We're a "republic"(people ruled)

That Guy · #7 04-26-2004, 03:02 PM

I am also not sure of what is meant in the article by the use of the word "is."

It can be interpreted a number of ways. And does heap refer to a compost heap? Or is it more of a metaphor?

That Guy · #8 04-26-2004, 03:03 PM

Rick,

I had no idea that democracies were ruled by the mafia?!?!?!?

Wow

rickg · #9 04-26-2004, 03:53 PM

Ya gotta wonder sometimes

djugurba · #10 04-26-2004, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Botnst
I get hung-up on the use of teh word, "Empire". It doesn't mean big and powerful or even largest and most powerful. It means being able to impose will. I'm sure somebody's latin is beter than mine but I think it comes from a latin root word meaning he who gives orders that must be obeyed. Like your wife, say.

B

Do you think that this definition works for the economic policies of the US? -"Do this or else" for those who fear us? I'm not so sure- but it's pretty clear that our foreign policy seeks to reward those who do what we want them to do and not reward those who choose otherwise. because we're so powerful economically, the decision becomes hard to make for other countries. look at cuba- who wants to be cuba? It's almost a must-obey situation, but I don't think it meets the test for empire. thoughts?

Flash Gordon · #11 04-26-2004, 04:15 PM

The power of the empire implies not just military power, but in modern days economic power as well. US has exercised numerous time to get other countries to see our way and do our way by using the economic power. Examples: Most Favorable Nations in trading, trade sanctions, import quotas, import tax and duties, foreign aid, etc. We are the expert of exerting economic power to make others see our way and do our way without even pulling a trigger

Botnst · #12 04-26-2004, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by djugurba
Do you think that this definition works for the economic policies of the US? -"Do this or else" for those who fear us? I'm not so sure- but it's pretty clear that our foreign policy seeks to reward those who do what we want them to do and not reward those who choose otherwise. because we're so powerful economically, the decision becomes hard to make for other countries. look at cuba- who wants to be cuba? It's almost a must-obey situation, but I don't think it meets the test for empire. thoughts?

The economic power of the globe is too diffuse to be mastered by a single entity. Probably the best example is OPEC, but since they control only oil while coal is a viable, abundant alternative, OPEC is partially held in-check by the sure knowledge that the USA has the greatest single proportion of coal. And so forth with any commodity. If one argues that we have intellectual domiannce in say, computers, then you gota wonder why some folks are so worried about jobs going to India. How can it be both?

Your example of Cuba is a good one. We've tried to crush Cuba over 4 decades and yet they are still a more viable economy than Haiti and probably Dominican Republic. So much for economic imperialism if we cannot even destroy an island nation off shore from us.

B

GermanStar · #13 04-26-2004, 04:52 PM

Could one not argue that the U.S. has already started its decline? That decline coinciding with our negative trade imbalance?

djugurba · #14 04-26-2004, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Botnst
So much for economic imperialism if we cannot even destroy an island nation off shore from us.

B

yeah, I tend to agree. but we sure have tried! ha ha.

As for the decline speculation, I dont neccessarily see nations as having to fall in the manner of powers past. Here, I think there are too many entities that desire long-term stability for the 'decline' to ensue.
I do think we are toast in about 20 years when China gets with the capitalist system. At least toast as far as guiding the global business world. They've got a full billion people more than we do. Without some major technological breakthroughs, we're going to see what carying capacity really looks like, if all 1.25 billion (probably 2 bill. by 2025) chinese desire a middle class lifestyle. Holy moly.

Flash Gordon · #15 04-26-2004, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GermanStar
Could one not argue that the U.S. has already started its decline? That decline coinciding with our negative trade imbalance?

Not really, we've had unfavorable trade balance for years even during Clinton. When did US start the decline, only history will tell. But as long as US maintain the economic power such as continuing the trend of consumer consumption, we can always make others see our way and do our way

The day we start to slow down for a prolong period of time of conspicuous consumption, other countries will lose respect and no longer fear us because we lost the big club to hit the others with. Right now, any country that exports a lot to US, will be nice and listen to us.