I tell you what that robot is not going to find in the moon. A US base. lol... Great Article S.A. Keep em coming.
. January 20, 2007 SouthAmerica: Here we go again This thread has been on the economics forum since 05-31-05 08:09 AM - the thread lasted one year and a half as an ECONOMICS Forum. And if you read all the threads since its inception some people mentioned other things besides economic matters - but as soon as the Achilles' Heel of the United States it is mentioned such as - the trillions of debt to foreigners that eventually will be defaulted and also anything related to defense - including an army that can't beat even a bunch of insurgents in Iraq, nuclear submarines that can't navigate anywhere without hitting other ships by accident, and a space program that it is in complete shambles. When these American Achilles' Heels are mentioned on this forum then they become just Chit Chat - these subjects can't be taken seriously in the same way the United States it does not take seriously its humongous international debt and they act "more like a Banana Republic" - and its army is so demoralized around the world and they are losing so much respect that even small and starving countries such as North Korea are laughing about how fast the United States is declining - and Iraq will affect the United States in the same way Afghanistan affected the Soviet Union. If you know what I mean......by the way, the words "ex-superpower" and "demise" comes to mind. .
. January 20, 2007 SouthAmerica: A reality check for the United States: "China, in an alarming exhibition of its military muscle, has fired a ground-based ballistic missile into space to destroy one of its own weather satellites, hitting a 4 sq ft box at 530 miles..." It is ironic how things work. Today China can start a major defense and space race with the United States, but with one major difference â who is going to finance the United States program? Today it is China the country that keeps the United States financially afloat â but if China decides instead to use its financial resources to build its military and its space program and they can do that â Where the United States is going to get the money to keep up an arms and space race with China and also keep a very expensive war going in the Middle East? Never mind all the other costly problems that the United States also has on its plate such as an old infrastructure, an ageing population with its related health care costs, all kinds of financial bail outs in the Us and so on.... The Europeans, the Russians, and South Americans can just sit and watch the United States self-destruct on the weight of its snow-balling outstanding debt. China has been giving the United States a lesson about capitalism for some time, and China is taking away all the influence that the United States had around the world â one country at the time â and now China can move up a notch its lesson to the United States - by starting a major arms and space race with the United States since that would be a final step in placing the United States into the same position of a collapsing Soviet Union. I guess it does not matter how you look at it â Anyone can see that today China has the United States by its balls. ************ âChina sets off a new round of Star Warsâ Published: January 20 2007 The Financial Times - UK A means of modern warfare the world had complacently come to see as at least informally off the table is now very firmly back on it â or, rather, scattered as metallic debris across miles of outer space. China, in an alarming exhibition of its military muscle, has fired a ground-based ballistic missile into space to destroy one of its own weather satellites, hitting a 4 sq ft box at 530 miles and bringing to a dramatic end a two decades-long moratorium on the testing of weapons in space. Good shooting, yes, but is it good politics? This experiment has drawn widespread condemnation. The US clearly sees it as part of an effort by China to develop anti-satellite capability that could threaten its extensive space assets. The Chinese test may or may not lead to a new arms race in space. But it will certainly strengthen the hand of hawks in Washington who regard Chinese power as a strategic threat to the US. Yet there is a long history behind this incident â and the leadership in Beijing is not known for foolhardy or precipitate action. The last extensive use of anti-satellite weapons was by the US and former Soviet Union in the 1980s. The cold war slowly raged, heated up in 1983 by President Ronald Reagan with his Strategic Defence Initiative â the infamous Star Wars speech in which he announced plans to develop the capability to destroy missiles from space. Those tests nonetheless ceased in 1985, not least because they created an uncontrollable fall-out of debris that threatened the network of satellites ever more densely carpeting the sky. Both Moscow and Beijing subsequently made efforts to take space out of the military equation. The US, with a military budget able to outspend almost the rest of the planet put together, was simply not interested. To the extent that it bothered to explain its position, Washington argued that the demilitarisation of space would be impossible to verify: a self-serving argument similar to the Bush administrationâs reasoning for opposing the verification protocol of the Biological Weapons Convention. In the past year, however, two developments may have rattled Beijing. First, the US nuclear co-operation agreement with nuclear-armed India is the clearest indication yet of Washingtonâs wish to build up a counterweight to China in Asia and the Pacific. But second, last summer the Bush administration came out with a new policy asserting that the US regarded space as important a dimension for the nationâs security as air or sea power. It may have been no coincidence that, within weeks, China ruffled American feathers by using a ground-based laser to illuminate a US satellite â and highlight its own reach into space. The US is so dependent on satellites for surveillance, observation of the âbattlespaceâ, communications and defence against any incoming missiles (or son of Star Wars) that it has reason to feel alarmed. The National Security Council on Friday called Chinaâs test âinconsistent with the spirit of co-operation that both countries aspire to in the civil space areaâ. Ideally, that remark would translate into a realisation that hyperpower exceptionalism â Americaâs sense of entitlement to rights it concedes to no ally, let alone competitor â comes at a cost. But the risk is that this episode will instead translate into a new surge of defence spending that will delight the arms industry but do nothing to enhance international security. .
I see what you mean now, yes I agree with you this thread definitely belongs in the economics area. Can the moderator please explain why thread's been moved to Chit-Chat area? Maybe some other posters can request for it to be moved back.
"SouthAmerica", Being new to these boards, I have not had the time to read the thread all the way back to it's begining. Having said that, it does seem to be a tad subjective for the moderator to move the thread simply because it dares to discuss economics from a political perspective. It seems to me that politics and economics present a more sensible 'marriage' than politics and religion. Your thread is certainly one of the most interesting ones that I have encountered recently, where ever it appears. If you do not mind my asking, what is your 'screen name' at PBS? There is a member there using 'Brazil' that posts some interesting thoughts.
. Sirscud: If you do not mind my asking, what is your 'screen name' at PBS? There is a member there using 'Brazil' that posts some interesting thoughts. ********* January 20, 2007 SouthAmerica: Welcome to this forum SirScud. Yes, my name on the PBS board is Brazil. I remember you from the other forum and this forum can use more people with your background. I have been posting a lot of material on this forum for about 2 years now - since the Bush administration started trying to destroy the PBS system. By the way, I have been bringing thousands of new members to this forum even though the managers of this forum "are not aware of it." It it not by chance that the number of members on this forum have been increasing so fast. This board is similar to the PBS forum there are some very intelligent people posting their opinions and there are also a group of idiots. In no time you will be able to figure by yourself what I am talking about. Once again welcome to this forum. .
I have to agree with Sirscud. When it comes to macro, you cant separate politics from economics... they go hand to hand.
. January 23, 2007 SouthAmerica: Thanks for the support guys - various threads has been moved back to economics including "The China Price". By the way, I was just watching the Charlie Rose Show late last night and he was interviewing former US Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, and one of the subjects that they covered on the interview it was China. They said that today the most important issue that will affect the future of the United States it isn't deficits, terrorism or even Iraq - it is everything related to China. In my opinion, this thread is becoming an interesting source of information about China. .
If we look at history books for over few thousand years China had the largest economy in the world, only during last 400 years Europe and America got ahead, and only with last 200 year strongly ahead. What is happening is reversion to the mean.