|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 24, 2011 5:07:01 GMT -5
I can't see the US annexing a state or two much to the dismay of many citizens. As for those other things, I don't really know. Me either. But rather than find out, seems to me the sensible thing to do is up taxes a bit. And I say that as a conservative who hates taxes. |
|
|
|
Post by malicious_bloke on Jul 24, 2011 5:40:54 GMT -5
Actually the sensible thing to do is learn mandarin
|
|
|
|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Jul 24, 2011 9:03:52 GMT -5
I can barely speak English! Good thing I'm in Canada.
|
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Jul 24, 2011 10:15:15 GMT -5
Actually the sensible thing to do is learn mandarin 我可以教你说国语! 我暂时只收每小时两百元. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgreen on Jul 24, 2011 10:24:43 GMT -5
Actually the sensible thing to do is learn mandarin Can't we learn Hakka instead just to piss them off? |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 24, 2011 10:51:09 GMT -5
In this case I think you are describing WWIII. Unless the reposession of US Assets by the People's Liberation Army coming around for a visit would result in any other outcome. Methinks this will not happen. I'm not an economist in any sense of the word... but when a country is unable to repay national debt, what traditionally happens? Does China just let them default, or what? I don't know about WWIII, or conventional invasion of the US, or anything like that, necessarily... but what about the Chinese nationalisation of US companies and other assets in China? Trade embargos and restrictions? Economic pressure on other countries to terminate economic relations with the US? Seems there's a lot of things the Chinese could do to recoup their costs without a general declaration of war. Who says we wouldn't shoot them if they try something like that? |
|
|
|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Jul 24, 2011 17:27:50 GMT -5
There's more of them then there are of you?
|
|
|
|
Post by itachirumon on Jul 24, 2011 17:55:38 GMT -5
Sounds like Bonehead is going it alone in the hopes of pushing cut, cap, and balance 2.0 through the congress. This is just...twisted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 24, 2011 18:00:16 GMT -5
There's more of them then there are of you? That doesn't sound like a good reason. |
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Jul 25, 2011 2:47:11 GMT -5
Traditionally, national default hasn't left creditor nations with much recourse beyond war to seize assets, but war against the US would be hard to meaningfully wage. The only countries in a position to do so logistically are Canada and Mexico, and it's hard to see either of them being party to a coalition against the US; we're simply too interdependent. Such a war would be positively ruinous (setting aside the fact that Mexico's falling apart as it is). Of course, with Republicans at the helm, it seems pretty likely that they'd rather go to war than give concessions that are inconsistent with a xenophobic view of American sovereignty.
The fact that national default in the modern age has pretty much only attended a dramatic regime change, such as the emergence of the first French Republic, the Bolshevik seizure of the Russian apparatus of state, or the CCP's victory over the KMT in China, probably confuses matters somewhat. But as far as I recall, in each case there was a massive default with the creditors being pretty much out of luck.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 25, 2011 3:31:59 GMT -5
I'm not an economist in any sense of the word... but when a country is unable to repay national debt, what traditionally happens? Does China just let them default, or what? I don't know about WWIII, or conventional invasion of the US, or anything like that, necessarily... but what about the Chinese nationalisation of US companies and other assets in China? Trade embargos and restrictions? Economic pressure on other countries to terminate economic relations with the US? Seems there's a lot of things the Chinese could do to recoup their costs without a general declaration of war. Who says we wouldn't shoot them if they try something like that? You very well might. Who would win such a conflict is perhaps less assured than some may think. Not to mention the economic and social ramifications of going to war against your biggest trading partner, creditor and supplier of manufactured imports. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 25, 2011 3:35:24 GMT -5
Traditionally, national default hasn't left creditor nations with much recourse beyond war to seize assets, but war against the US would be hard to meaningfully wage. The only countries in a position to do so logistically are Canada and Mexico, and it's hard to see either of them being party to a coalition against the US; we're simply too interdependent. Such a war would be positively ruinous (setting aside the fact that Mexico's falling apart as it is). Of course, with Republicans at the helm, it seems pretty likely that they'd rather go to war than give concessions that are inconsistent with a xenophobic view of American sovereignty. The fact that national default in the modern age has pretty much only attended a dramatic regime change, such as the emergence of the first French Republic, the Bolshevik seizure of the Russian apparatus of state, or the CCP's victory over the KMT in China, probably confuses matters somewhat. But as far as I recall, in each case there was a massive default with the creditors being pretty much out of luck. I think an actual war is unlikely. That doesn't preclude some very, very bad things from happening. I'm listening to a discussion on the topic at the moment on ABC radio... commentators are seriously discussing the possibility of Greek-like austerity measures in the US. Imagine the ramifications of the US government suspending payment of public servants and/or the military for 6 months? www.abc.net.au/rn/nationalinterest/ |
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Jul 25, 2011 10:13:08 GMT -5
I'm listening to a discussion on the topic at the moment on ABC radio... commentators are seriously discussing the possibility of Greek-like austerity measures in the US. Imagine the ramifications of the US government suspending payment of public servants and/or the military for 6 months? www.abc.net.au/rn/nationalinterest/Except why does the US need Greek-like measures when the country isn't even close to the kind of suffering Greece went through? Greek debt is 143% of GDP; the US is about 2/3s. A significant chunk of Greek's debt is in the hands of foreign creditors, making it much more susceptible to speculation. And Greek debt doesn't enjoy the rock-solid reputation of T-Bills. At best, the USA is on the road to a Greek-style fuckup, but its still way on the horizon. Yet willingly defaulting on debt would allow the US to freefall towards such a condition. You think 2008 was bad? Imagine what happens when, in addition to the high unemployment and run on banks, the interest rate and inflation does this:  This is what happened to Greece when their debt was downgraded from BBB to BB, then eventually down to CCC. The drop from the lowest investment-grade rating (safe-ish in finance-speak) to the highest junk-rating (run for the hills) took about a year. The US faces a similar implosion if they default on even a portion of their debt. The demolition derby will be swift and it will forever scar the US economy. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 25, 2011 10:41:15 GMT -5
There's more of them then there are of you? Yeah, but they hold their guns Chinese style. Don't you know anything? It's the reason 50 cent is still alive. Well, that and they're using pop guns to shoot him.... |
|
|
|
Post by Jodie on Jul 25, 2011 13:35:50 GMT -5
|
|
