[Luvianka]

It's an old topic which has been evolving over time. The most serious analysis in my opinion is that of Igor Panarin, who envisions the breakup of the USA into 6 republics:
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/fl...n_11152012

[germanico]

(06-15-2015 04:29 PM)Luvianka Wrote:  

It's an old topic which has been evolving over time. The most serious analysis in my opinion is that of Igor Panarin, who envisions the breakup of the USA into 6 republics:
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/fl...n_11152012

Thats bullshit. Texas would never again be under Mexican rule.

If anything, the opposite would be true: a total collapse of the US would mean a total economic breakdown for most of Latinamerica, opening the door for Texas to invade the unruly, lawless states of northern Mexico.

Though, those states are known for its combativeness, so they would cost Texas dearly, perhaps triggering its own internal collapse.

An interesting scenario nonetheless.

[Tex Pro]

(06-15-2015 04:39 PM)germanico Wrote:  

(06-15-2015 04:29 PM)Luvianka Wrote:  

It's an old topic which has been evolving over time. The most serious analysis in my opinion is that of Igor Panarin, who envisions the breakup of the USA into 6 republics:
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/fl...n_11152012

Thats bullshit. Texas would never again be under Mexican rule.

If anything, the opposite would be true: a total collapse of the US would mean a total economic breakdown for most of Latinamerica, opening the door for Texas to invade the unruly, lawless states of northern Mexico.

Though, those states are known for its combativeness, so they would cost Texas dearly, perhaps triggering its own internal collapse.

An interesting scenario nonetheless.

Texas will be majority Mexican-American within a generation.

Interesting graph nonetheless.

There are tons of Chinese flooding California right now, so much so that Chinese are now the #1 source of legal immigrants to the USA. Could definitely see these Chinese immigrants having dual sympathies, especially if the economic tide turns greatly in favor of China in the coming decades.

Although, I doubt the USA will be carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey to such an extent. The USA will retain enough military capability to prevent that from happening.

The only territory in danger of leaving is Hawaii if the Chinese are able to get the independence movement there going full steam.

[germanico]

^Yeah, but its the red-blooded American minority that holds the guns, the money and the law.

[Tex Pro]

(06-15-2015 04:50 PM)germanico Wrote:  

^Yeah, but its the red-blooded American minority that holds the guns, the money and the law.

Bullshit.

There are cartels in Northern Mexico with machine guns, grenade launchers, MANPADS and armored cars.

Don't know what will eventually happen to the Southwest, but it will be majority Mexican-American with a generation.

Don't see it succeeding as much as becoming a Latin-American province, much like Quebec is a French province located in Canada.

[Luvianka]

Yes, Panarin's analysis is not perfect. I don't agree with some of his points, one of them is that Mexico would control parts of broken USA. However, I agree with the fact that Mexican-American are going to be a majority in sucha places of the USA like California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and so, they are going to be a key factor in the future independence of such regions.

[Deepdiver]

The irony of China owning America is they really do not. Nearly 30% of international students studying in the USA are from the new millionaires class in China over 230,000 students in the USA in 2015. Where do they set up their stash pads overwhelmingly in USA and also western Canada.

America is strong. Our ability to project air power via Drone technology is strong to say the least - now also on Naval Ships - means your future sons will not have to fly through heavy flak WWII and North Korean style and the world's best and brightest come here to capitalize on their skills and inventiveness.

Read a decent Monetary Sovereignty or Modern Monetary Theory blog about how electronic money and payments drive the world today - Japan may have a funky economy but they still manufacture the highest quality stuff in the world with Korea a close second - China is not even close except for Foxconn basically a US Billionaires invention to make igadgets and MS video game boxes or HP printers... with near prison labor conditions.

What is "The Big Lie" http://mythfighter.com/2015/06/01/finish...a-deficit/

http://mythfighter.com/2015/03/11/stepha...e-big-lie/

A “balanced budget” means the government removes as many dollars from the economy as it puts in, thereby assuring recession. (See: #3 and #4 here.)

A “sustainable” debt is one a debtor can pay off in a timely manner. But there is no debt, of any size, the federal government could not pay off. Every debt in dollars is sustainable to the U.S. federal government.

Not only does our Monetarily Sovereign government have the unlimited ability to create its sovereign dollars, but paying off the debt requires that virtually no new dollars be created.

The so-called federal “debt” really is nothing more than the total of T-security accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank. These accounts are much like savings accounts.

How does a bank “pay off” savings accounts? It simply debits the savings accounts and credits checking accounts. No new dollars needed.

So when MacGuineas whines about federal debt “sustainability,” she is mouthing the Big Lie.

MacGuineas said, “trillion dollar deficits are projected to come back within a decade.”

Translation: The government will pump a trillion dollars worth of stimulus into the economy, every year.

And this is a bad thing??

Ideally, MacGuineas said, the country would balance the budget over the business cycle.

Translation: This is ideal for the rich — you know, the people who pay her salary. Not so good for the poor and middle, but who cares about them? Right, Maya?

“This doesn’t mean we should balance the budget every year. In fact, it makes economic sense to borrow during recessions, and save during times of higher growth.

Here, MacGuineas admits (without realizing it) that deficits grow the economy.

That being the case, why would she not want the economy to grow every year. Answer: She is paid by rich people, not to want it.

[Easy E]

^That stuff you posted doesn't even make sense.

The canard that "China owns the USA" is obviously false since the USA could always print any amount owed to China (or anyone else really) and hand them their money back. Of course, they would be paying China back in greatly devalued dollars, but they always can pay the money back.

China at this point isn't even adding any more dollars to its FX holdings. It is, however, adding gold as a hedge on the dollar denominated bonds it holds in case the USA was to ever try to pay them back in devalued dollars.

A good guy to follow on monetary policy is Jim Rickards. I don't agree with everything he writes, but he is definitely exposing how the global financial markets are changing and the moves the Chinese, Russians, and others are making.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/20...-standard/

[CJ_W]

(06-14-2015 08:20 PM)Easy E Wrote:  

Relevant videos:

The point is collapses happen pretty quickly once imperial decay sets in. I would definitely say the US Empire is in decay much like the British Empire was in decay in the early 20th century.

However, I agree with others that as long as the USA continues to have the world's reserve currency, then it can continue to borrow and limp along. That is why what the Chinese are doing is telling. They are taking the steps necessary to make the Renminbi (aka the Yuan) a reserve currency. They are lobbying hard to have it included in the SDR basket of the IMF, they have created the AIIB, they have helped create the BRICS bank, they are entering into currency swap agreements with numerous countries, and they are settling more and more of their trade in Yuan.

Maybe a collapse is not in the cards in the next ten years or so, but beyond that things begin to get murky really quick.

Watching the Chinese is pretty important actually, along with pumping tons of money into investments in Africa, the canal in Central America, they are doing some BOLD shit on top of that - building a new military base in the south China sea, near the Philipines, that is pretty much Far away from their territory, AND they're building a base near an Okinawan island as well.

The Chinese are obviously preparing for something, there's no reason to . . ."forward settle" (Play Civ V if you can)upon multiple nations at once unless you're confident that you can take them on. Especially the move into the south China sea, that's just extremely blatant and would be an act of war in another time period(due to so many nations using that stretch of sea).

Of course on the OTHER HAND, China is having its own banking crisis as well, they are in the midst of the same time of bubble that happened in 2008 in the U.S. and the Chinese can't stop it, despite telling their banks to do so, the banks aren't listening. Which could be the motivation for China to invest more heavily around the world, to prepare for a Chinese bubble burst. There's already growing income inequality already (in a country that has a LOT of that going on) so it's really hard to say what's to happen. That and the Chinese are afraid of one thing more than anything: Their own people. The Chinese government is in a bit of a precarious situation to be honest(which is why they're desperately expanding in my opinion) This could be good or bad for them or for the rest of the world. I'll let you guys figure out what I mean by that.

Also, The China/Russia "Alliance" isn't as solid as people think. Russia and China are pretty much neighbors, but China does see Russia's expansion into Ukraine as worrisome, seeing as there's only Mongolia keeping Russia from expanding into China. and after a lot of China's history of being encroached on they are pretty wary of other powers coming in close on their territory (See Korean war). The moment Russia inevitably makes a silly move, or expands more, is the moment that China will distance themselves from Russia QUICKLY. The Chinese are all about investment. For now the U.S. is the best choice for investment, as they aren't making silly moves like pissing off the rest of the world by invading ("City States") and crippling their own economy but cutting themselves off from the rest of the world trade and business wise.

If Europe and Russia actually got their shit together and stopped making stupid moves however, then China would be looking at them more seriously. But now they're looking at Africa, India, Central America, while keeping their trade and appearances with the U.S. WHILE at the same time trying to keep their people happy, healthy, distracted and. . . EMPLOYED.



P.S. oh and China does not own the USA, The pensioners "Own" the USA, China will be paid off LONG before we will (as that's where about 70% of the debt is coming from. . .other Americans)

P.P.S Forgot to mention why war will never happen with the U.S. for now. . .If China were to start something, The U.S. would pretty much wipe out all of their infrastructure projects around the world in an instant, the U.S. would never even have to invade China to cripple it. China wouldn't be able to invade other nations to retaliate either, even with the huge state controlled media they have. People forget how much power still lies in the U.S. Then you got the other force that is growing in power: Corporations (See the TPP) if anyone has anything to fear. . .its them.

[Samseau]

(06-15-2015 07:40 PM)Deepdiver Wrote:  

The irony of China owning America is they really do not. Nearly 30% of international students studying in the USA are from the new millionaires class in China over 230,000 students in the USA in 2015. Where do they set up their stash pads overwhelmingly in USA and also western Canada.

America is strong. Our ability to project air power via Drone technology is strong to say the least - now also on Naval Ships - means your future sons will not have to fly through heavy flak WWII and North Korean style and the world's best and brightest come here to capitalize on their skills and inventiveness.

Read a decent Monetary Sovereignty or Modern Monetary Theory blog about how electronic money and payments drive the world today - Japan may have a funky economy but they still manufacture the highest quality stuff in the world with Korea a close second - China is not even close except for Foxconn basically a US Billionaires invention to make igadgets and MS video game boxes or HP printers... with near prison labor conditions.

What is "The Big Lie" http://mythfighter.com/2015/06/01/finish...a-deficit/

http://mythfighter.com/2015/03/11/stepha...e-big-lie/

A “balanced budget” means the government removes as many dollars from the economy as it puts in, thereby assuring recession. (See: #3 and #4 here.)

A “sustainable” debt is one a debtor can pay off in a timely manner. But there is no debt, of any size, the federal government could not pay off. Every debt in dollars is sustainable to the U.S. federal government.

Not only does our Monetarily Sovereign government have the unlimited ability to create its sovereign dollars, but paying off the debt requires that virtually no new dollars be created.

The so-called federal “debt” really is nothing more than the total of T-security accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank. These accounts are much like savings accounts.

How does a bank “pay off” savings accounts? It simply debits the savings accounts and credits checking accounts. No new dollars needed.

So when MacGuineas whines about federal debt “sustainability,” she is mouthing the Big Lie.

MacGuineas said, “trillion dollar deficits are projected to come back within a decade.”

Translation: The government will pump a trillion dollars worth of stimulus into the economy, every year.

And this is a bad thing??

Ideally, MacGuineas said, the country would balance the budget over the business cycle.

Translation: This is ideal for the rich — you know, the people who pay her salary. Not so good for the poor and middle, but who cares about them? Right, Maya?

“This doesn’t mean we should balance the budget every year. In fact, it makes economic sense to borrow during recessions, and save during times of higher growth.

Here, MacGuineas admits (without realizing it) that deficits grow the economy.

That being the case, why would she not want the economy to grow every year. Answer: She is paid by rich people, not to want it.

Deepdiver, I'm afriad you're being taken for a ride. This seemed like terrible economic logic, so I clicked on some of your links and found out what premises this economist is operating under. I found this:

http://mythfighter.com/2009/09/07/introduction/

Quote:

1. Fact: Money is the way modern economies are measured. By definition, a large economy has a larger money supply than does a small economy. Therefore, a growing economy requires a growing supply of money. QED

I stopped reading right here. This premise is demonstrably false; a large economy does not necessarily have a larger money supply. This is because money is fungible, which means it can be infinitely divided into smaller pieces as the supply of goods and services increases. So, for example, if an economy is growing and producing lots of goods and services for the people, but the money supply remains stagnant, what you'd see is that instead of gas costing 4 dollars a gallon, it falls to 3 dollars a gallon. The supply of money remains the same while the total amount of goods increases, which results in each dollar being worth more since there are fewer dollars in proportion to the total supply of goods.

Since this economist has a fundamentally unsound premise we know the rest of his arguments are bad, and there wasn't much point to reading the rest of him.

[rudebwoy]

If China carries the USA debt, doesn't it mean they sort of own America?

It seems a bit suspect that China is allowed to go all over the world and do as they please. Is the Anglo/American alliance allowing this to happen!

[Easy E]

(06-15-2015 08:56 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

If China carries the USA debt, doesn't it mean they sort of own America?

It seems a bit suspect that China is allowed to go all over the world and do as they please. Is the Anglo/American alliance allowing this to happen!

Not really.

Since China stopped adding dollars to its FX reserves, Japan is probably going to be the largest foreign USD holder in the future. Japan won't own the USA anymore than China "owns" the USA.

The problem with holding USD bonds is that the Federal Reserve could, at any moment, print an unlimited amount of USD and pay you in devalued dollars.

Thus, what is stopping the USA from acting against China isn't debt but trade.

The US and China have about $500 billion in yearly trade (and growing). If the USA were to try and sanction China, then US corporations would lose billions overnight.

It is multinational corporations that own the USA, and US politicians dance to their tune like trained dogs.

[Easy E]

(06-15-2015 08:20 PM)CJ_W Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 08:20 PM)Easy E Wrote:  

Relevant videos:

The point is collapses happen pretty quickly once imperial decay sets in. I would definitely say the US Empire is in decay much like the British Empire was in decay in the early 20th century.

However, I agree with others that as long as the USA continues to have the world's reserve currency, then it can continue to borrow and limp along. That is why what the Chinese are doing is telling. They are taking the steps necessary to make the Renminbi (aka the Yuan) a reserve currency. They are lobbying hard to have it included in the SDR basket of the IMF, they have created the AIIB, they have helped create the BRICS bank, they are entering into currency swap agreements with numerous countries, and they are settling more and more of their trade in Yuan.

Maybe a collapse is not in the cards in the next ten years or so, but beyond that things begin to get murky really quick.

Watching the Chinese is pretty important actually, along with pumping tons of money into investments in Africa, the canal in Central America, they are doing some BOLD shit on top of that - building a new military base in the south China sea, near the Philipines, that is pretty much Far away from their territory, AND they're building a base near an Okinawan island as well.

The Chinese are obviously preparing for something, there's no reason to . . ."forward settle" (Play Civ V if you can)upon multiple nations at once unless you're confident that you can take them on. Especially the move into the south China sea, that's just extremely blatant and would be an act of war in another time period(due to so many nations using that stretch of sea).

Of course on the OTHER HAND, China is having its own banking crisis as well, they are in the midst of the same time of bubble that happened in 2008 in the U.S. and the Chinese can't stop it, despite telling their banks to do so, the banks aren't listening. Which could be the motivation for China to invest more heavily around the world, to prepare for a Chinese bubble burst. There's already growing income inequality already (in a country that has a LOT of that going on) so it's really hard to say what's to happen. That and the Chinese are afraid of one thing more than anything: Their own people. The Chinese government is in a bit of a precarious situation to be honest(which is why they're desperately expanding in my opinion) This could be good or bad for them or for the rest of the world. I'll let you guys figure out what I mean by that.

Also, The China/Russia "Alliance" isn't as solid as people think. Russia and China are pretty much neighbors, but China does see Russia's expansion into Ukraine as worrisome, seeing as there's only Mongolia keeping Russia from expanding into China. and after a lot of China's history of being encroached on they are pretty wary of other powers coming in close on their territory (See Korean war). The moment Russia inevitably makes a silly move, or expands more, is the moment that China will distance themselves from Russia QUICKLY. The Chinese are all about investment. For now the U.S. is the best choice for investment, as they aren't making silly moves like pissing off the rest of the world by invading ("City States") and crippling their own economy but cutting themselves off from the rest of the world trade and business wise.

If Europe and Russia actually got their shit together and stopped making stupid moves however, then China would be looking at them more seriously. But now they're looking at Africa, India, Central America, while keeping their trade and appearances with the U.S. WHILE at the same time trying to keep their people happy, healthy, distracted and. . . EMPLOYED.



P.S. oh and China does not own the USA, The pensioners "Own" the USA, China will be paid off LONG before we will (as that's where about 70% of the debt is coming from. . .other Americans)

P.P.S Forgot to mention why war will never happen with the U.S. for now. . .If China were to start something, The U.S. would pretty much wipe out all of their infrastructure projects around the world in an instant, the U.S. would never even have to invade China to cripple it. China wouldn't be able to invade other nations to retaliate either, even with the huge state controlled media they have. People forget how much power still lies in the U.S. Then you got the other force that is growing in power: Corporations (See the TPP) if anyone has anything to fear. . .its them.

The Chinese have enough FX reserves that they could bailout their banking sector, but it seems like they are going to allow the bad banks to fail and rescue only the "too big to fail" ones. Smart policy since there really does need to be a cleaning out of the Chinese banking sector.

As for war, the Chinese don't plan on ever going to war with the USA. They instead plan on chipping away at what allows the USA to be an imperialist power: the dollar and its use in global trade. Once the dollar is finished, they will have won without ever firing a shot.

[rudebwoy]

The G7 summit concluded in Germany last week. Chinese scholars and media barely showed any interest to this outdated informal institution, except for a Declaration on Maritime Security issued by G7 foreign ministers. The declaration expressed their concerns on "unilateral actions" in the South China Sea, with China as the obvious target.



Judging from the agenda and outcomes of this year's G7 summit, it has run counter to the global trend of peace, development and cooperation and become mere of a geopolitical tool.



Since the very beginning of the establishment of the G7, it has been a rich-man's club that consists of Western major powers and aims to maintain the collective hegemony of the US-led West. It used to focus on the world's economic issues, and then extended to political and security affairs. After the Cold War, Russia was included in this grouping, which almost became the core of global governance and looked as though it might replace the UN Security Council.



However, the other G7 members never treated Russia as an equal partner. Russia was only entitled to discuss politics and security but not financial and economic issues.



As the world entered the 21st century, new economies started to emerge and the world's political and economic center has gradually shifted to the Asia-Pacific. The 2008 global financial crisis forced G7 members into a stalemate, and these nations started to realize that they could only get rid of the crisis with the help of emerging economies. Therefore, the US proposed defining the G20 as the main platform to discuss international economic problems. Within the G20, although the G7, as a sub group, intends to dominate the agenda-setting, the G7 cannot play its role without cooperation from new economies whose voices can be heard more nowadays.



Yet countries such as the US and Japan can hardly accept the rising international status of emerging economies and are reluctant to give up their hegemony. When the financial crisis eased slightly, Western media vigorously propagated the "revival" of the G7. But the economic performance of G7 members meant the summit was a gathering of debtors.



To some extent, the role of the G7 in global economic governance is negative. The IMF and the World Bank are under the control of G7 members. This is one of the reasons for the low implementation capacity of the G20.



In the field of politics and security, Western powers relentlessly promoted the role of the G7. But the G7 has proved to be unable to maintain regional stability, and has led to chaos in the Middle East instead. After the Ukrainian crisis, the West excluded Russia from the original G8, making the current G7 grouping on the way to becoming a Cold War relic.



Russia and China are main targets of the discussion at this G7 summit. They decided to continue to impose pressure on Russia amid the ongoing Ukrainian crisis. As for China, they focused on issues around the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the East and South China Sea. But it is worth noting that European members have shown a different stance from the US and Japan on both matters.



Whether the G7 will become a geopolitical tool or a Cold War relic largely depends on European countries. Unlike the US, Europe shares a closer geopolitical and economic links with Russia. If the G7 becomes a platform for the confrontation between the West and Russia, it will undoubtedly be a disaster for Europe. Seeking a peaceful solution to the Ukrainian crisis with Russia fits European interests. As for the East and South China Sea disputes thousands of kilometers away from the European continent, these countries needn't necessarily get involved.



During the G7 summit, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe tried to pull European countries to Japan's anti-China bandwagon. China should continue to stay wary of the Japanese government

[Simeon_Strangelight]

A financial slow controlled collapse of the US will come.

The movie Looper is a good view of the US future:



It will come mostly due to unsustainable usury laden public debt - just as the fall of Britain came due to that. In addition to the usual usury 50-100 year bankruptcy routine there is the planned austerity under the guise of Global Warming and "sustainability". The living wages are set to decline.

But let us see what the Military High Command is expecting for the next decades:

Quote:

US Economic Crisis. The US position as the world’s most indebted nation makes
it vulnerable to stock market collapse, currency runs and economic crisis, as well
as global currency manipulation. The most likely cause of crisis would be energy
market instability or volatility leading to a loss of market confidence. Also, failure
to continue to support or service its debt in these circumstances would put US
creditors and commodity suppliers at risk, possibly causing a global economic
downturn.
• Failure of Global Financial System. Economic growth may be affected by
financial shocks such as economic recession, natural or human-induced disasters
or failure to deal with social and environmental challenges. There will be further
pressure from corruption, organized crime and increasing illicit activity which will
challenge international regulation, while stressing and undermining trust and
fiduciary regimes

Quote:

• Rogue or Failed Cities. Owing to burgeoning populations and uncontrolled
development, city authorities and regulatory mechanisms may lose the ability to
maintain order, while remaining a functioning entity in the international system.
This loss of control may be represented by a discrepancy between administrative
and resource capacity on the one hand and human requirements on the other.
Large cities in developing regions are more vulnerable to failure, with wider
impacts that will be equivalent to state-failure.
• Cities’ Abandonment of the Countryside. Cities, as engines of economic growth,
opportunity and social inclusion in developing regions, may increasingly abandon
their impoverished hinterlands, giving them up to poverty, backwardness and
lawlessness, or, in more secure areas, mass tourism or industrialized agriculture.

Flight from the rural areas - what they are not telling is that they are going to make it much more expensive to live there due to the coming Green Fascism.

Quote:

• Generation Conflict in Developed Countries. The declining size of working
populations and rising social, health and pension costs in developed countries,
financed through taxation, will increase the financial burden on the younger
elements of society. Further exacerbation by unaffordable house prices, student
debt and unemployment, contrasted with the wealth locked up in older
generations, may lead to protests on a wide scale, resulting in instability and social
unrest.

The military High Command in most countries consists of guys with IQs above 140 on average, so no wonder they are well prepared, even though the report above is the one publicly available. I am sure they have others more for insiders.

Quote:

• US Economic Vulnerability. The perception of the US as an ultimate guarantor of
international security and the health of the international economic engine, able to
intervene politically and militarily in unstable areas and in the settlement of
intractable problems, is central to the stability of the present international system.
A US economic downturn, resulting in its reduced international posture, may lead
to increased global tension, inter-state rivalry and a greater military provision, and
possibly intervention, by other nations.

China is to take over from the US as the world's policeman.

Quote:

• Mega-City Failure. A large city in a developing region (or a number of large cities in more than one region) may fail before 2035. The effects will be equivalent in character, if not in scale, to state failure, which city failure may, in turn, precipitate.
Based on recent experience, the military stabilization of a major city would demand
a comprehensive Inter-Agency approach, specialist skills, and an enduring
operational commitment.
• Endemic Urban-Based, Irregular Conflict. It is likely that unregulated urbanization
will result in future adversaries who have highly-developed urban survival and
combat skills. They may consequently choose to pursue their objectives and
conduct operations in sprawling towns and cities which will already have
experienced endemic lawlessness and high levels of violence.

In case you were wondering why the police in rural Idaho needs equipment like that:



This paragraph is interesting as they point out that the sexes in feminized societies in the West might start to experience outright hostility making it even easier to control a population:

Quote:

• Feminized and Male-Dominated Societies. The issue of gender balance and
weight of influence will continue to dominate the world’s social and political
agenda. Gender balance will be determined by culture, belief and social
structures, with varying degrees of equality and advantage. Divergence between
feminized societies, where women achieve greater representation, and maledominated
societies is increasingly likely. This disparity is likely to be reflected in
all aspects of a culture or society and may stimulate growing friction between the
two, possibly leading to outright hostility, with the former regarding the latter as
uncivilized and the latter regarding the former as decadent or irreligious.

So the NATO brass expects the US to lose the No. 1 status after 2020 officially:

Quote:

The US is likely to sustain its international leadership until at least 2020, after which a
more multipolar world will challenge its hegemonic status, with China, Russia, India,
Brazil and Indonesia and a host of alternative, possibly rival polities weakening its grip on
certain regions and the international system. US strategic power will also be
progressively diluted by its integration within an increasingly globalized economy and the
need to address large budgetary imbalances and deficits.

I don't think that a Mad Max collapse will be allowed to happen, but Ferguson - just a lot worse, that is a real likelihood at least in short periods. In the US in the future you either make it big and be on the right side of the favelas or you move abroad, where some aspects of survival will be easier.

[Tytalus]

(06-16-2015 03:07 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

A financial slow controlled collapse of the US will come.

The movie Looper is a good view of the US future:



It will come mostly due to unsustainable usury laden public debt - just as the fall of Britain came due to that. In addition to the usual usury 50-100 year bankruptcy routine there is the planned austerity under the guise of Global Warming and "sustainability". The living wages are set to decline.

But let us see what the Military High Command is expecting for the next decades:

Quote:

US Economic Crisis. The US position as the world’s most indebted nation makes
it vulnerable to stock market collapse, currency runs and economic crisis, as well
as global currency manipulation. The most likely cause of crisis would be energy
market instability or volatility leading to a loss of market confidence. Also, failure
to continue to support or service its debt in these circumstances would put US
creditors and commodity suppliers at risk, possibly causing a global economic
downturn.
• Failure of Global Financial System. Economic growth may be affected by
financial shocks such as economic recession, natural or human-induced disasters
or failure to deal with social and environmental challenges. There will be further
pressure from corruption, organized crime and increasing illicit activity which will
challenge international regulation, while stressing and undermining trust and
fiduciary regimes

Quote:

• Rogue or Failed Cities. Owing to burgeoning populations and uncontrolled
development, city authorities and regulatory mechanisms may lose the ability to
maintain order, while remaining a functioning entity in the international system.
This loss of control may be represented by a discrepancy between administrative
and resource capacity on the one hand and human requirements on the other.
Large cities in developing regions are more vulnerable to failure, with wider
impacts that will be equivalent to state-failure.
• Cities’ Abandonment of the Countryside. Cities, as engines of economic growth,
opportunity and social inclusion in developing regions, may increasingly abandon
their impoverished hinterlands, giving them up to poverty, backwardness and
lawlessness, or, in more secure areas, mass tourism or industrialized agriculture.

Flight from the rural areas - what they are not telling is that they are going to make it much more expensive to live there due to the coming Green Fascism.

Quote:

• Generation Conflict in Developed Countries. The declining size of working
populations and rising social, health and pension costs in developed countries,
financed through taxation, will increase the financial burden on the younger
elements of society. Further exacerbation by unaffordable house prices, student
debt and unemployment, contrasted with the wealth locked up in older
generations, may lead to protests on a wide scale, resulting in instability and social
unrest.

The military High Command in most countries consists of guys with IQs above 140 on average, so no wonder they are well prepared, even though the report above is the one publicly available. I am sure they have others more for insiders.

Quote:

• US Economic Vulnerability. The perception of the US as an ultimate guarantor of
international security and the health of the international economic engine, able to
intervene politically and militarily in unstable areas and in the settlement of
intractable problems, is central to the stability of the present international system.
A US economic downturn, resulting in its reduced international posture, may lead
to increased global tension, inter-state rivalry and a greater military provision, and
possibly intervention, by other nations.

China is to take over from the US as the world's policeman.

Quote:

• Mega-City Failure. A large city in a developing region (or a number of large cities in more than one region) may fail before 2035. The effects will be equivalent in character, if not in scale, to state failure, which city failure may, in turn, precipitate.
Based on recent experience, the military stabilization of a major city would demand
a comprehensive Inter-Agency approach, specialist skills, and an enduring
operational commitment.
• Endemic Urban-Based, Irregular Conflict. It is likely that unregulated urbanization
will result in future adversaries who have highly-developed urban survival and
combat skills. They may consequently choose to pursue their objectives and
conduct operations in sprawling towns and cities which will already have
experienced endemic lawlessness and high levels of violence.

In case you were wondering why the police in rural Idaho needs equipment like that:



This paragraph is interesting as they point out that the sexes in feminized societies in the West might start to experience outright hostility making it even easier to control a population:

Quote:

• Feminized and Male-Dominated Societies. The issue of gender balance and
weight of influence will continue to dominate the world’s social and political
agenda. Gender balance will be determined by culture, belief and social
structures, with varying degrees of equality and advantage. Divergence between
feminized societies, where women achieve greater representation, and maledominated
societies is increasingly likely. This disparity is likely to be reflected in
all aspects of a culture or society and may stimulate growing friction between the
two, possibly leading to outright hostility, with the former regarding the latter as
uncivilized and the latter regarding the former as decadent or irreligious.

So the NATO brass expects the US to lose the No. 1 status after 2020 officially:

Quote:

The US is likely to sustain its international leadership until at least 2020, after which a
more multipolar world will challenge its hegemonic status, with China, Russia, India,
Brazil and Indonesia and a host of alternative, possibly rival polities weakening its grip on
certain regions and the international system. US strategic power will also be
progressively diluted by its integration within an increasingly globalized economy and the
need to address large budgetary imbalances and deficits.

I don't think that a Mad Max collapse will be allowed to happen, but Ferguson - just a lot worse, that is a real likelihood at least in short periods. In the US in the future you either make it big and be on the right side of the favelas or you move abroad, where some aspects of survival will be easier.

You have a link to a pdf? This is the real shit.

[N°6]

(06-14-2015 03:21 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

I personally can't foresee this happening... unless there is a currency which credibly challenges the dollar.

Sooner or later there will be a challenge to the dollar, which ever since 'patriotic conservatives' asset-stripped US manufacturing and sent it to rival nations with cheap labour, is the nation's most important export.

At the minute, the US can bomb oil-exporting countries back into Breton Woods should they think of following Iraq's and Libya's aspirations to sell oil in Euros and a created African dinar respectively.

If the BRIC nations manage to uproot the dollar, prices of hitherto cheap foreign imports into the US will go through the roof when producer nations become less desperate to be paid in US dollars.

At the minute China and Russia are paying for the unlimited Federal Reserve lending to fund the US military as the value of their dollar reserves decreases every time the Fed creates new dollars like a toilet paper factory.

[N°6]

(06-15-2015 04:39 PM)germanico Wrote:  

(06-15-2015 04:29 PM)Luvianka Wrote:  

It's an old topic which has been evolving over time. The most serious analysis in my opinion is that of Igor Panarin, who envisions the breakup of the USA into 6 republics:
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/fl...n_11152012

Thats bullshit. Texas would never again be under Mexican rule.

If anything, the opposite would be true: a total collapse of the US would mean a total economic breakdown for most of Latinamerica, opening the door for Texas to invade the unruly, lawless states of northern Mexico.

Though, those states are known for its combativeness, so they would cost Texas dearly, perhaps triggering its own internal collapse.

An interesting scenario nonetheless.

'Texas' is a label for lines on maps which in theory should represent the maximum extent of land that the dominant group within it can control.

The real Texas, which is formed by borders of people of identifiable groups living near each other, will come under increasing Mexican influence when its dominant demographic becomes Mexican.

In a democracy, demographics is the long-term and the ultimate election campaign.

The US has set the precedent in Europe since Woodrow Wilson when he enforced the creation of new countries based on identifiable groups which often had little history of ruling themselves. Recently the US recognised the extraction of Serbia's most important province to form the new Albanian-influenced gangster state of Kosovo simply because Albanians with higher birthrates became the majority.

If the Scots decide to leave the UK, how much more will the new 'Kosovar' Texans?

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(06-19-2015 11:53 PM)Tytalus Wrote:  

You have a link to a pdf? This is the real shit.

The link from the department of Defense is now defunct, but it was available here:

http://www.cfr.org/defense-strategy/dcdc...036/p13101

Some sites have uploaded and saved it on theirs:
http://cuttingthroughthematrix.com/artic...3jan07.pdf

By now there is an updated version of it, but it has similar statements there - which is no surprise really given the militarization of the police. I hope no one is buying their explanation of "war on drugs" etc.

[Easy_C]

(06-14-2015 03:21 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

I personally can't foresee this happening... unless there is a currency which credibly challenges the dollar.

As long as the demand for dollars is there the U.S. can keep on borrowing.

But collapses do happen fast. In the case of the U.S. it would happen when there was something which caused a worldwide loss of faith in its ability to make good on its debts, pay bonds, etc.

Start reading the writings of a guy named Martin Armstrong. It's not only probably, but almost guaranteed. China is positioning the Yuan to take over as the reserve currency but it's a long ways away from being viable...decades even.

One thing that the West is doing to significantly accelerate this is their aggressive hunt on cash. They're going after any assets that aren't tied down and are trying to eliminate physical money because they think that an electronic currency will eliminate barter and black markets(allowing them to tax EVERY transaction and stopping any tax evasion).

The only real world impact is that it will drive capital to Eastern business centers.

edit:

Quote:

he US is likely to sustain its international leadership until at least 2020, after which a
more multipolar world will challenge its hegemonic status, with China, Russia, India,
Brazil and Indonesia and a host of alternative, possibly rival polities weakening its grip on
certain regions and the international system. US strategic power will also be
progressively diluted by its integration within an increasingly globalized economy and the
need to address large budgetary imbalances and deficits.

Interesting quote there. 2020 is also a date targeted by multiple pundits and forecasters.

[germanico]

(06-20-2015 12:39 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

The real Texas, which is formed by borders of people of identifiable groups living near each other, will come under increasing Mexican influence when its dominant demographic becomes Mexican.

In a democracy, demographics is the long-term and the ultimate election campaign.

So, those mexicans went to texas to be under mexican economical and political influence?

[Cattle Rustler]

A Russian professor making statements about the US dissolving.

Hahaha! If anything, he shouldn't say much...after all, the USSR dissolved two decades ago while the US stands.

@No6 - The population in Texas used to be Mexican before they got invaded. What's wrong with getting the land back?

[N°6]

(06-20-2015 10:30 AM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

@No6 - The population in Texas used to be Mexican before they got invaded. What's wrong with getting the land back?

I did not touch on the morality of the matter but your post only reinforces the reality that Texas will increasingly become disputed territory when those who feel that Mexicans should get the land back become the democratic majority.

However the upper tier of the new Mexican majority may not want to give the governorship of the republic to Mexico preferring instead to run it itself. Texas would be a viable independent republic, free from Washington DC and Mexico City so maybe some sort of shared-rule from Austin is Texas' future.

In US terms in general, how is the Mexican birthrate contrasting with the European and African abortion rates? There will be a price to pay for all this bloodshed that European and African women undertook to keep their SMVs propped up. Under the long époch of the Baby Boomer generation which still rules the West, there will be a lot of chickens that will suddenly come home to roost.

[kerouac]

(06-15-2015 04:39 PM)germanico Wrote:  



Thats bullshit. Texas would never again be under Mexican rule.

If anything, the opposite would be true: a total collapse of the US would mean a total economic breakdown for most of Latinamerica, opening the door for Texas to invade the unruly, lawless states of northern Mexico.

Based purely on anecdotal experiences here in Southern California, I don't think the Mexicans or other Latinos have any sort of allegiance to their birth or family countries. There are some college students who believe in returning California to its former "glory" under the Mexican flag, but I doubt that is the common view (and, of course, there are the Mexicans who fly the Mexican flag during soccer games, but that is similar to someone from New York supporting the Yankees while living in LA). If the United States were to somehow magically crumble within the next few years, which I doubt it will, I am sure the established Hispanics will be more likely to want to join a grand southwestern state rather than join Mexico. It would be some sort of Hispano/Anglo/Chino state, but I seriously doubt it would ever come to that.

When it comes to economics, I have a feeling the MMT people are on the right page, but I have to look more into that.

Krugman goes on to talk about it here, on his blog. He doesn't believe in it (fully), but it's a nice quick read.

[The Beast1]

I don't believe hyperinflation would ever come to the US. The Fed has all sorts of stuff on their balance sheets and could very easily force the banks to buy back those toxic assets which would soak up excess liquidity. A lot of that cash is floating digitally and wouldn't take a lot of effort to make disappear. Unlike in the past, it was very difficult to remove paper from circulation.

I'd be curious to see how such an event would play out.