Maybe this is naive but, would bringing our troops home help the financial crisis? (credit card, purchase)

[baystater]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Mircea

That would cause irreparable harm to the US. Geo-strategy is like a chess-match. This chess-match started in 1978. We're in the middle-game now. The US has pushed its pawns into Poland, the Czech Republic, Turkey, Iraq and Afghanistan, it's knights and bishops are in Germany, Romania, Bulgaria, and Kuwait/Persian Gulf, and it's threatening the "center" which is Central Asia.

The biggest problem is that the US miscalculated and is playing 2 opponents, Russia, and China. The Chinese weren't supposed to be where they are until 2024-2030, at which time the US would have defeated Russia and turned its attention to Africa, which should have been sufficiently developed for the US to cherry-pick.

If the US loses, and there's a high likelihood it will, the US will fail as a country. Without control over the resources in Central Asia or in Africa, it will be left to the Russians, Chinese or anyone else, most likely the Germans and French, to determine the currency in which those resources are sold on the world market.

If the resources aren't sold in US Dollars, and are sold in Russian Rubles, or Chinese Yuan, or Euros or basket currencies, the value of the US Dollar will decline, making it nearly impossible for Americans to import things from abroad to sell in their retail stores and to manufacture for resale. The quality of life and standard of living in the US would decline markedly, with mass unemployment.

Very good analysis.

I'm sure some idiot will say that China needs the US. That's short-sighted. Perhaps they do now, but mathematically, does it make a difference if you export $1 Trillion in goods to 300 Million people, or 1 Billion people? No. $1 Trillion is still $1 Trillion.

I think eventually china will be able to have a self sustaining economy in the future. Not exactly sure when but I believe it coming in the near future. They won't need us anymore sooner rather than later.

As a consumer base, the potential lies in Africa and South America, as the developing nations there have a long way to go to reach a standard of living even remotely resembling the US. The US potential is essentially maxed out. As a future market, your potential profits lie in South America and Africa, not in the US, and the Chinese know that, which is why they're investing in those regions at a pace the US can never match.

Could you elaborate a little more on why South Africa is the place to be? You've got my interest peaked.

Without a base in Iraq, the US has no way to influence future events in the Middle East, Central Asia or Africa, and if the US cannot exert influence on those regions, it cannot control them, and if the US cannot control them, the US has no future. The US would end up like the biggest Sweden on Earth.

My only issue with Iraq (at least the cost of it.) Is the amounts private contractors/mercenaries are making. I understand why these companies are asking for so much. They are in harms way. But my problem is, why can't some/most of the jobs be done by us military personal instead of contractors. Even if there is some inefficiencies it would cost us a lot less.

Unless we are so weak or enlistment/reenlistment is so far down that we simple don't have the man power to do this. I have not heard anything like this out there so I think we can start replacing the contractors.

[jimj]

[quote=baystater;5569489]

My only issue with Iraq (at least the cost of it.) Is the amounts private contractors/mercenaries are making. I understand why these companies are asking for so much. They are in harms way. But my problem is, why can't some/most of the jobs be done by us military personal instead of contractors. Even if there is some inefficiencies it would cost us a lot less.

Unless we are so weak or enlistment/reenlistment is so far down that we simple don't have the man power to do this. I have not heard anything like this out there so I think we can start replacing the contractors.

That's exactly the issue, we don't have enough forces to do the whole thing. Some troops are on their 4th tour so we had to hire contractors to do what they can.

[flu189]

I am in the reserve component and ironically for my own economic well being a deployment will not only save me money, but also pare down the astronomical costs I face in daily life. However, the absolute cost in dollars on maintaining current Iraq/Afghanistan operations is staggering. I imagine it is possible that the next administration will actually be forced to carefully look at the costs versus benefits. Personally, I just can't see how we can afford to sustain what many analysts see as a commitment extending another decade or even longer.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by bale002

Do you think that the Russians and Chinese, maybe the Arabs as well, have helped to engineer this financial crisis?

No, but they are engineering control of the US Dollar. Put yourself in the position as the leader of a developing nation. You want a better quality of life and a higher standard of living. You can't do that because Americans consumer resources like a swarm of locusts, which places high demand pressure and drives up prices of good and resources making them unaffordable for your people.

You can't invade the US and it would be senseless and serve no real purpose. You can't cut the US off, because that would be bad business and invite retaliation from the US. The only thing you can do is abandon the US Dollar and drive its value down.

That makes goods and resources expensive to Americans, who will be forced to cut their consumption and reduce demand, which drives down prices for you, but keeps them high for Americans.

It's just common sense. At $1 = 1 Euro, a bushel of wheat at $5 per bushel is also 5 Euros per bushel.

But at $1 = 0.50 Euros, a bushel of wheat will cost you 5 Euros, but Americans are paying $10/bushel.

Drive the value of the US Dollar down to $1 = 0.25 Euros and you're still paying 5 Euros a bushel, but Americans are paying $20 per bushel.

As you can plainly see, Americans will be forced to reduce consumption. You need wheat to eat so Americans will have no choice but to pay the $20/bushel, but in doing so they can't consume other resources, which frees them up for consumption by other countries.

The problem here is the choices that Americans are forced to make. As they cut back, jobs are lost. If Americans are paying $20/bushel for wheat, they can't be spending $5.95 per week consuming Chlorox kitchen wipes, and a host of other things.

[cpg35223]

[quote=baystater;5569489]

Very good analysis.

I think eventually china will be able to have a self sustaining economy in the future. Not exactly sure when but I believe it coming in the near future. They won't need us anymore sooner rather than later.

Could you elaborate a little more on why South Africa is the place to be? You've got my interest peaked.

My only issue with Iraq (at least the cost of it.) Is the amounts private contractors/mercenaries are making. I understand why these companies are asking for so much. They are in harms way. But my problem is, why can't some/most of the jobs be done by us military personal instead of contractors. Even if there is some inefficiencies it would cost us a lot less.

Unless we are so weak or enlistment/reenlistment is so far down that we simple don't have the man power to do this. I have not heard anything like this out there so I think we can start replacing the contractors.

See, BayStater, I would respectfully disagree on the question of China. While China certainly has more capital reserves than we do, I believe the Chinese economy is more fragile. My reasoning?

1) The Chinese may be cooking the books on their economic growth. The tip off is that despite the stated yearly double-digit increase in GDP, there has not been a corresponding increase in electrical production. Instead, electrical output has grown at roughly half the country's stated GDP increases, which is an economic impossibility. Something has to power all those factories, computers, construction, and bigger homes. If my contention is truly the case, then the Chinese is a massive confidence trick that could fall apart if the world economy slides.

2) The Chinese economy is heavily dependent on exporting consumer goods to the United States and Europe. If there is a severe retrenchment in consumer spending in the West, those factories go idle in a hurry.

3) The Chinese demographic crisis. The One Couple/One Child policy institute by Mao in the late 60s and early 70s will really start affecting China in the next 10-20 years by creating a demographic crisis that will make our own Baby Boomer/Social Security dilemma seem quite manageable by comparison. Add to the fact that there is a male/female ratio seriously out of whack (by virtue of the selective abortion of females in order to ensure that a couple's one child was a male), then you actually have a situation where there will be even fewer nuclear families in China's near future. Finally, the fact that there is almost no pension or economic structure to support the elderly in China, and you will have an enormous, growing liability over the next several decades.

4) The enormous wealth disparity between rural and urban China. Shanghai certainly looks like a 21st Century city. Rural China still looks like the 18th. What's more, there is growing unrest in the interior, partially fueled by corruption, partially fueled by a highly restrictive agrarian economy.

5) The hemorrhaging Chinese stock market. Over the past year, the Shanghai Composite has lost roughly 2/3rds of its value, making our current bear market look mild in comparison.

With all these factors, along with a secretive totalitarian state that still tolerates corruption, I would offer that the Chinese are in a far bigger economic pickle than we are, but don't dare admit it to anyone. Given my reading on Chinese history, if it gets really bad, then I think there are only two outcomes here: Revolution or War. I'm really hoping that it's the first alternative and not the second.

Turning my attention to Russia, I think that country is a basketcase and will remain so. Yes, they're rolling in the petrodollars right now. But the long-term demographics are startlingly unfavorable and--as we've learned from the so-called "Dutch Disease"--fossil fuel wealth means almost no long-term, sustainable wealth for the general populace.

[dmarie123]

movielover,
The US Armed Forces can't be used for Riot Control. That's against the constitution. Nation Guard can, but the federal troops can't unless Martial Law is going to be declared.
Let's hope there are no riots.

Hmm, destruction... that should help us save money!

[texdav]

Just liike alwyas when we bring troops home ;many will be released form the military ;raising unemployement. Also defense contracts that are most US comapmies scale back meaning more unempoloyed workers.

[cpg35223]

Originally Posted by dmarie123

movielover,
The US Armed Forces can't be used for Riot Control. That's against the constitution. Nation Guard can, but the federal troops can't unless Martial Law is going to be declared.
Let's hope there are no riots.

Hmm, destruction... that should help us save money!

Well, he calls himself Movie Lover for a reason. He has a very active fantasy life.

[foma]

Originally Posted by bls5555

If we are in such a serious financial crisis, why are the politicians not talking about closing military bases and bringing home all our troops?

If we did that, then do we lay off military personnel? If we do, don't we have an even bigger unemployment statistic? Military bases don't just spend money, they make money, too. The revenue, I'm sure, doesn't cover the cost of running a base but it does keep many people employed. Present company included.

I don't know much about the financial crisis but it also seems like to me that would be a way to cut costs.

Yeah, you would cut costs and personnel.



Also, one of the big things that got us out of the depresseion was WWII. I don't claim to know the whole story but I do know that WWII created a lot of jobs and got the economy going again. I'm sure there were other factors. I'm not proposing we go to war by any means, but I also don't think closing military bases is a solution.

[foma]

Originally Posted by baystater

My only issue with Iraq (at least the cost of it.) Is the amounts private contractors/mercenaries are making. I understand why these companies are asking for so much. They are in harms way. But my problem is, why can't some/most of the jobs be done by us military personal instead of contractors. Even if there is some inefficiencies it would cost us a lot less.

Unless we are so weak or enlistment/reenlistment is so far down that we simple don't have the man power to do this. I have not heard anything like this out there so I think we can start replacing the contractors.

They are short staffed as it is!! I know the department that I work in, operating budget has reduced significantly.

Also, not everyone wants the contracting-type jobs. You can get civilians in the military to volunteer to go overseas but you can't make them. Plus, contractors have specific knowledge to get certain tasks done that miliatary personnel may not have. That would also be another reason why we can't just get military personnel to do the contractors' jobs.