Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [3]

[Eldorion]

If you know in advance which treaties the Senate will reject I guess you could do that, but it's hard to change the world without the largest and most powerful states signing on. I'm not referring solely to the US when I say that.

[Lancebloke]

At some point in the not too distant future, the US wont be the worlds only superpower any more. The majority of countries and regions wont need to rely on the US and it will become less and less important... much as the British Empire did at the turn of the 20th century and every dominant civilization before.

At some point the US will need to start actually doing more of what other people want, not just itself, otherwise it will end up on the outside.

I imagine in 50-100 years time, most of the BRIC countries will have caught up and some will have overtaken the US economically and probably militarily so it wont be able to throw its weight around so much any more.

[Eldorion]

Yeah, I agree, Lance.

But when that time comes in 50-100 years the rest of the countries in the world will need to tread carefully around China, or India, or whichever country/ies have taken the top spot.

[Pettytyrant101]

There can be pressure applied Eldo just because they are outside a generally accepted treaty- especially if the big countries, China, Russia, India ect all sign up to it (which it looks like they probably will on this one).
I dont know but Id imagine the US people get a bit sick of the rest of the world thinking they are a bunch of selfish war mongers who dont care if the planet burns or gets covered in an oily sludge so long as it doesnt happen in the US- but you do tend to give off that impression at an international level (look at the BP oil spill- outrage from all aspects of US society- yet US oil companies have destroyed entire regions decades ago and still not put a penny up for the clean up operations- chevron and Ecuador spring to mind, but its only one example)
Stuff like 9/11 didnt happen because for the proceding 50 years the US had a fair or nice foreign policy.

So if America wont sign up to be responsible members of the planet then maybe its time they were shunned on these treaties in the hope the American people will realise what is going on in their name.

Yes, I do agree there Lance- power moves as new economies emerge, and money follows- and once it starts seriously flowing out of the US elsewehre its days as a super power will be numbered.
And that can be quite hard on the psyche of the people I think- look at us in the UK still struggling to find where we now belong in the world, and still trying to act like a big player even though its bankrupting us in the effort without Empires riches flowing in any longer.

[Eldorion]

The segment of the American people who cares and is informed about the broader world tends to not enjoy being lumped in with the rest of the population, but I'm not sure how many Americans give a shit what the rest of the world think about us. After all, they're probably just jealous that we're the greatest country in the world.

Incidentally, this attitude is why I fear that the US will handle post-superpower status just as ungracefully as the UK, if not worse.

Seriously though, I'm a little uncomfortable with how some people assign blame for the actions of the American government or American corporations to the entire country's population. No one tries to argue that the British people as a whole bore responsibility for the tens of millions of deaths in British India or elsewhere in the Empire.

[Pettytyrant101]

we didnt have a full democracy back then Eldo- the US is a full fledged democracy- the people are responsible for the government they elect.
Same goes here now- the only exceptions to this are when the people make their voice clear regardless of election time (the Iraq war springs to mind when the largest protest in UK history took place against it and the war went ahead anyway- you could argue then it was not the wil of the British people)- but in general we the people are responsible at the end of the day- we are the ones with the votes.

[Eldorion]

I think you are far more optimistic about the effectiveness of democracy than I am. The value of a vote is not that much when both parties fully embrace neoliberalism and endorse imperialism in all but name.

[Pettytyrant101]

The power always resides with the people at the end of the day- the problem is people dont realise it, or are too illinformed.
To take the BP thing as an example- the people were right to be outraged, they were right to demand the company pay for the clean up and for the action to be immediate- but where are the same voices in the same numbers over the mess made by Chevron in Equador? which is much worse than the BP spill because its been left to fester for 20 years whilst the company use the courts to block taking responsibility.

The people of the US could solve that problem too, just as they did the BP one- but either they dont realise they can or they just dont care about foreigners (and from my experience of Americans the latter is just not true)
If politicians think votes are at risk- you soon see them move.

[Lancebloke]

Yeah, I agree, Lance.

But when that time comes in 50-100 years the rest of the countries in the world will need to tread carefully around China, or India, or whichever country/ies have taken the top spot.

I think, for once, their are going to be more 'superpowers' than at any time in history. China is obviously going to be a huge one if it manages to keep its act together. India may not be far behind it if they also manage to get their heads out of their own arses. No offence intended to any Indian people as 3 months there a few years back and the constant contact in my job, I know they are as capable as anyone else... they just tend to be preoccupied with other things most of the time. Brazil and Latin America will turn in to a trading block with South East Asia and Russia should be the link between the growing Asian economies and a (at some point) rejuvenated EU.

So within the next century, I would imagine we will see several large players in world economics (and the military clout that comes with it) other than the US.

I have also had the luxury of working with people of various nationalities and the Americans I have met are definitely not the stereotypical ones that spring to mind if someone were to ask. A few are... but not all

[Pettytyrant101]

I should have met a lot of stereitpical Americans really- as all the ones I knew personally were navy families.
Then again my Dad, who worked for the Americans and ws back and forth to America always said Americans in America were different from those outside. Never been 100% sure what he meant by that, but I got the impresion he meant you get more of the U.S.A. chanting mentalitiy inside the country than from those Americans outside of it.

[Lancebloke]

A lot of the ones I have met in the UK are well travelled and have more perspective on the world. A lot were very openly critical of their government and its policies, but unfortunately the more populated and cosmopolitan states just didn't outnumber the less populated 'red neck' states... hence Bush getting a second term and Obama struggling to make a difference.

Had a great chat with a builder in McDonalds in New York a few years back. He pretty much had the same issues and concerns that I had and was very grounded.

[David H]

Don't forget that when you're talking about America you're talking about 314 million people of many ethnic backgrounds spread over 9 time zones from the tropics to the high arctic. The working government is done in 50 different capitals (and Honolulu Hawaii and Augusta Maine are over 5,000 miles apart. In some ways it's more challenging to get a consensus here than in the EU.

Some things that affect everybody just have to move slowly. Many of us in rural areas would rather never have been a world power, let alone a super power, in the first place. We were never structured for that.

But if you think ostracizing 314 million people for moving slowly or sometimes having different opinions is a good idea Petty, I think you'll find that many of the Scots-Americans will not agree with you (they make up significant percentage of the redneck population) and they'll respond exactly like Scots always have when disrespected.

[Pettytyrant101]

But if you think ostracizing 314 million people for moving slowly or sometimes having different opinions is a good idea Petty- David

I think when every day actual people are actually being killed then its probably worth risking it and trying to push them along a little.

[David H]

Many people are trying, but have you ever tried herding Scotsmen? Even 4th and 5th generation Scotsmen?

[Pettytyrant101]

Have you tried distracting them with buckie?
If that fails (then they are no longer Scotsmen! ) I suggest the fail proof method, persuade their women folk first, if thy are also Scots women at source then the men will all fall into line, probably in less than a day.

[David H]

I suggest the fail proof method, persuade their women folk first, if thy are also Scots women at source then the men will all fall into line, probably in less than a day.

Been working on that and it seems to be having an effect. Have you looked at Obama's female demographic?

[Pettytyrant101]

Smart man- thats the way to do it.

[Pettytyrant101]

Got a technical question- mainly for David as I figure he should know- I have been reading the fall out from the failure in the US to get the farm bill passed.
Now the reporting is full of stuff about subsides and stamps ect but I cant actally work out what its all about.

So my question is this - what exactly were the perceived problems the Farm Bill was supposed to be addressing?

I figure if I know that it might make more sense. But I cant find the info in the reports.

[David H]

The Farm Bill is a massive omnibus bill that is put together by legislators from the various states with strong agricultural interests. It's been around for at least half a century, maybe more, and comes around for review and amendment every few years.

It's hundreds of pages and covers international trade agreements, subsidies for certain crops that are facing oversupply or undersupply,  infrastructure improvements in rural areas, agricultural research, standards for organic farming and a thousand other things.  

For us, the biggest deal is the funding for agricultural research, including maintaining the weather stations.  In the past it has provided low interest loans for farm improvements and grants to offset the cost of complying with new environmental regulations that would otherwise put many small farmers out of business. There's plenty of "pork" for the big agribusinesses as well.

It seems that the issue at the moment is the subsidies. One of the standard tools for dealing with food surpluses is to try to get it into the mouths of the poor through various school lunch programs and food stamp programs. It appears that some of the rabid fiscal conservatives are opposed to providing food to the poor, and feel that farmers who can't make a living through wild market fluctuations should get out of the business. Idiots.

Does that explain things well enough, or do you need more?

[CC12 35]

i can't speak for petty but i think i get it now lol

Thanks !

[Pettytyrant101]

Yes thanks David, it particuarly clears up where the food stamps come into it- I assume the conservative angle is that its just a form of government subsidy and everyone should be left to the markets.
But I assume it helps feed the poor, provides needed income to growers and provides the government with access to cheaper than marketplace goods to supply its food programs.

So is the bill failing to pass a good thing or a bad thing for you?

[CC12 35]

well ive got 2 b complete ly honest wiv u it doesn't really affect me petty

[Eldorion]

Most Republicans are in favor of farm subsidies because it appeals to the rural base that is, statistically speaking, more likely to vote Republican (which doesn't mean anything in individual cases, but it's the sort of thing party strategists look to).

Libertarians and strong (some would say "genuine") fiscal conservatives tend to be opposed to them.

[CC12 35]

agreed

[David H]

Yeah, it's really not a party line issue. It's more of an urban/rural division, with the old Southern Democrats historically being the strongest advocates (tobacco subsidies and all).  To vote against the farm bill in a big ag state is political suicide.

Because the bill is so big and was conceived in the days when cross-the-isle compromise was normal, there's a lot to like and a lot to dislike in it. For example paying people NOT to grow crops on their land year after year is just stupid.

For us there's no immediate effect, but if our research infrastructure isn't funded for an extended period it will be hard to get back.  It also means young families trying to get started probably won't be able to get the loans to get started or expand, which often means they move away to the city, leaving no new generation to take over the farms. That's a big loss to everybody.