Is the US safest from an economic depression? (interest, costs, recessions)

[long101]

Originally Posted by forest beekeeper

The US unemployment numbers equal the Great Depression [talking real numbers, no tweaked and adjusted, smoke and mirror numbers, just the real numbers like from before we invented PR].

You mean the same way that the bulk of women were not included in the unemployment #s during the depression, but now are?

[CowanStern]

Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname

You need to look at the % of their GDP that comes from people in the US.

There's a reason the saying is that when America sneezes the world gets a cold.


These undeveloped countries get much of their food from 1st world aid

That is illusory, based on statistics in a currently-functioning global economy, and when everything changes, all those bets are off. Mexico was a net exporter of food until a few years ago, when it became more cost effective to produce and sell energy-yielding crops, and import foods from more highly mechanized countries that could produce food more cheaply, aided by economy of scale.

In a post-apocalyptic global economy, you will find that Mexicans CAN produce and deliver food with available local labor, but America cannot, without a heavy reliance on scarce energy resources applied to field work, transport, and fertilizer.

[Sgt. Buzzcut]

The book Aftershock talks about some of this. One line used by it's author is quite frightening "The medicine will become the poison".

[bale002]

The US enjoyed a relatively long period of, say, 90% autarky.

My best guess is that the US could survive an economic depression and return to former levels of autarky, but of course no way that some 300 million could enjoy the same current levels of credit-induced consumption.

US agriculture could probably feed everyone, even on foodstamps as forest beekeeper mentioned (or paper dollars thrown down from helicopters, amounts to about the same thing), and there seems to be a boom in domestic oil and gas production (shale and fracking) to ensure fuel needs, but I imagine that the population would shrink, in part due to disease and possibly social violence (riots, war, etc.), not to mention a virtual stop to immigration.

All in all, I'd rather bet on the US, though one could do relatively well in some other advanced industrialized countries provided near farmland.

Of course much also depends on the ruling class's willingness to ensure survival of the bulk of the population rather than let a large swathe be killed off, like they did some 70 years ago with some 50 million during the second global industrial war, mainly in Europe and Japan/China.

Do not underestimated humans' capacity to miscalculate risk and to do evil.

Good Luck!

[Lincolnian]

Originally Posted by bale002

The US enjoyed a relatively long period of, say, 90% autarky.

My best guess is that the US could survive an economic depression and return to former levels of autarky, but of course no way that some 300 million could enjoy the same current levels of credit-induced consumption.

US agriculture could probably feed everyone, even on foodstamps as forest beekeeper mentioned (or paper dollars thrown down from helicopters, amounts to about the same thing), and there seems to be a boom in domestic oil and gas production (shale and fracking) to ensure fuel needs, but I imagine that the population would shrink, in part due to disease and possibly social violence (riots, war, etc.), not to mention a virtual stop to immigration.

All in all, I'd rather bet on the US, though one could do relatively well in some other advanced industrialized countries provided near farmland.

Of course much also depends on the ruling class's willingness to ensure survival of the bulk of the population rather than let a large swathe be killed off, like they did some 70 years ago with some 50 million during the second global industrial war, mainly in Europe and Japan/China.

Do not underestimated humans' capacity to miscalculate risk and to do evil.

Good Luck!

Does the future always have to follow the apocalyptic path? I see tremendous opportunity in the US with a clearly-defined mission and sensible people choosing to step forward and lead.

[Molly12]

Originally Posted by itsjustmeagain

Funny. I tell you what. If Europe falls, America will fall. In the next 5 - 10 years we will see a depression which will make "the great depression" look like a nice picnic. Anyone who thinks America is isolated by the problems of the rest of the world is delusional. We are headed for very instable times over here and the rest of the world.

Yeah,I agree with you. It will influence the whole world.

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by Lincolnian

Does the future always have to follow the apocalyptic path? I see tremendous opportunity in the US with a clearly-defined mission and sensible people choosing to step forward and lead.

'Lead'?

545 people wield 100% of the power to control our nation [435 congressmen, 100 senators, 9 Supreme Court justices, and 1 president]. 545 human beings out of the 235 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

Where are they leading us?

Our debt load will kill our nation, so are our leaders cutting our debt load? The Farm Bill was nearly doubled just now.

We are being led to destruction.

[Lincolnian]

If the people truly want change they need to unite, organize, and lead by example. Most people are too complacent and aren't willing to be inconvenienced to try and affect change. Ironically, the digital explosion that is capable of mass communication has hindered direct contact and establishing personal relationships necessary for transformative change in leadership.

[Rickd203]

Originally Posted by Lincolnian

If the people truly want change they need to unite, organize, and lead by example. Most people are too complacent and aren't willing to be inconvenienced to try and affect change. Ironically, the digital explosion that is capable of mass communication has hindered direct contact and establishing personal relationships necessary for transformative change in leadership.

Therein lies the problem. The change we need to make is going to be very difficult and very few people want to be inconvenienced. I could say that I'm leading by example but nobody in my neighborhood actually doing anything to follow my lead. Trying to get any kind of change in (political) leadership isn't going to happen when all the candidates are hand-picked by the super-pac's. I still vote but after they get in office I can't get past their receptionist. I am so tempted to go the state capitol and padlock the doors but I know the people here would never follow me in something like that. They will sit in their houses watching me (on their big flat screen TV's that they get from illegal transactions with their EBT cards) get hauled off to jail for being foolish enough to challenge the PTB.

Instead of wasting my time trying convince people around here that everyone must make inconvenient changes if want to save the country from economic collapse, I concentrate my efforts on being as self-sufficient (and mobile) as possible. If things get too bad, know people that own farms who would be willing to take me in to work the farm and guard the property.

[Lincolnian]

Originally Posted by Rickd203

Therein lies the problem. The change we need to make is going to be very difficult and very few people want to be inconvenienced. I could say that I'm leading by example but nobody in my neighborhood actually doing anything to follow my lead. Trying to get any kind of change in (political) leadership isn't going to happen when all the candidates are hand-picked by the super-pac's. I still vote but after they get in office I can't get past their receptionist. I am so tempted to go the state capitol and padlock the doors but I know the people here would never follow me in something like that. They will sit in their houses watching me (on their big flat screen TV's that they get from illegal transactions with their EBT cards) get hauled off to jail for being foolish enough to challenge the PTB.

Instead of wasting my time trying convince people around here that everyone must make inconvenient changes if want to save the country from economic collapse, I concentrate my efforts on being as self-sufficient (and mobile) as possible. If things get too bad, know people that own farms who would be willing to take me in to work the farm and guard the property.

I see that you're in Connecticut as well. The state and federal government (and even the world) are now so interconnected that states, like Connecticut, are not able to make many of the key changes necessary to deal with the problems they are facing. States can add to the problem (from a tax standpoint) but rarely are able to improve the situation much beyond the structure established by the federal government. The Commerce Clause is effectively not functional in today's world because acceptance of federal monies require agreeing to federal requirements and stipulations.

Any fiscal change to welfare/social service benefits must be made in conjunction with changes to health care, education, taxation, etc. As much as I am against Obamacare it is a fact that something needs to be done to ensure that everyone carries insurance unless we are willing to become a callous nation that will deny health care service to those who are not insured and don't have the means to pay for treatment.
A basic level of health care should be available to all citizens of the US. This would also result in greater mobility of the workforce and more options for employers and employees. How it's paid for and who provides it is something that lawmakers need to figure out. Employers and individuals looking for better coverage can carry supplemental insurance that kicks in beyond the basic. Those who cannot pay would receive the basic coverage and it would be factored into their overall benefits.