Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-28-2007, 05:10 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
14,044 posts, read 27,141,059 times
Reputation: 7373

Advertisements

New technologies to address these problems. California is partially doing this now, such as many new homes self generating solar electricity.

Lennar SOLAR plus | Green Options (broken link)
Go Solar California
California Passes Long-Term Solar Energy Plan
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-28-2007, 05:15 PM
 
Location: West LA
2,318 posts, read 7,822,975 times
Reputation: 1125
empire - Definitions from Dictionary.com

To imply we have an empire is incorrect according to the definition of "empire" in Websters. Seems that having an emperor is a key factor. Last time I checked... we didn't have one of those. (No, Bush is not an emperor, though I'm sure some will liken him to one). If we didn't have an empire to begin with... how can it fall?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2007, 05:40 PM
 
11,135 posts, read 14,157,625 times
Reputation: 3696
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
I see the above as the key result of your analysis. My reaction is why would this be so unusual? Weren't we splitting the power of the world with the Soviets and Chinese back in the 1950-1980 timeframe? I guess if I had to briefly summarize my take on your perspective, it is that the evolution you propose is something I agree with (though I believe you substantially underrate India and Japan), but I don't think we really had much of a timeframe as a sole superpower. Putin has effectively repositioned Russia, and the programs he has in place, as I discussed in other threads, to dominate the routing of oil and natural gas should assure them of being a significant continuing presence.

I think we handle this through strategic alliances, with countries such as Mexico, Canada, Japan, South Korea and Brazil. We can exploit the weaknesses in our competitors, much like a business does. Europe is really a partial ally in this process, but China (poor quality control and repressive sharing of intellectual information) and Russia (great at undermining and intimidation but lousy at management and production) would clearly be our competitors.

I think we will fare rather well if we stop being so head strong about things such as energy and environment, and view these as economic opportunities instead of impediments.
To address these specifics in bold.

First, I don't think it was unusual as I stated in the latter portion about the world being cyclical in nature. I think it is rather inevitable to be frank.

For the time post WWII, the world was basically shared between the United States and the Soviet Union. China, although no slouch of a nation, was just not on par with the United States and I think a good part of this was due to its more isolationist and introverted culture. It isn't that China had the ability to be greater than it was, I am just not sure it knew how to at the time.

Japan is one of the leading nations advocating the pax-asia alliance that is slowly taking shape currently. You are correct that I didn't address the impact of India, as India is truly difficult to place as it is the crossroads between the Middle East and Asia and will certainly play a growing role in the future. Good point and something I will have to further consider.

I don't think we need alliances so much as we need trading partners. Call me more Jeffersonian, but the dangers of such alliances are not always seen on the surface and one does not need that level of cooperation in order for everyone to benefit. Mutual cooperation and trade benefits should be self evident, not only to us but to those we wish to do business with. Better to start a friendship from business than a business out of friendship I think was the saying.

I agree with this from your assertion that it is something to profit from instead of being a detriment. I believe there is a great deal of money and technology to be had in new energies and environmentalism and is ripe to be exploited by our technological prowess. I tend to see opportunity where other see difficulties. (the last bit of idealism I think I have left)

I do sincerely appreciate your thoughtful critique.



Quote:
Originally Posted by LASam View Post
empire - Definitions from Dictionary.com

To imply we have an empire is incorrect according to the definition of "empire" in Websters. Seems that having an emperor is a key factor. Last time I checked... we didn't have one of those. (No, Bush is not an emperor, though I'm sure some will liken him to one). If we didn't have an empire to begin with... how can it fall?
Yes we are not an empire in the technical sense, but we are certainly an empire by the classical sense of our scope of influence. So you are right, and I disagree. :-)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2007, 05:52 PM
 
Location: Journey's End
10,203 posts, read 27,068,425 times
Reputation: 3946
Thanks for adding the links, it provided context for your last remarks. I had read them, and re-read them, but wasn't certain where you stood. Apparently, my reading comprehension is slipping.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
New technologies to address these problems. California is partially doing this now, such as many new homes self generating solar electricity.

Lennar SOLAR plus | Green Options (broken link)
Go Solar California
California Passes Long-Term Solar Energy Plan
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2007, 05:57 PM
 
11,135 posts, read 14,157,625 times
Reputation: 3696
Quote:
Originally Posted by ontheroad View Post
Thanks for adding the links, it provided context for your last remarks. I had read them, and re-read them, but wasn't certain where you stood. Apparently, my reading comprehension is slipping.
it could be that the grey above the ears is now growing into the ears...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2007, 06:09 PM
 
Location: Journey's End
10,203 posts, read 27,068,425 times
Reputation: 3946
Anything is possible when you get to be old!


Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper View Post
it could be that the grey above the ears is now growing into the ears...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2007, 06:19 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
14,044 posts, read 27,141,059 times
Reputation: 7373
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper View Post
I don't think we need alliances so much as we need trading partners. Call me more Jeffersonian, but the dangers of such alliances are not always seen on the surface and one does not need that level of cooperation in order for everyone to benefit. Mutual cooperation and trade benefits should be self evident, not only to us but to those we wish to do business with. Better to start a friendship from business than a business out of friendship I think was the saying.

I agree with this from your assertion that it is something to profit from instead of being a detriment. I believe there is a great deal of money and technology to be had in new energies and environmentalism and is ripe to be exploited by our technological prowess. I tend to see opportunity where other see difficulties. (the last bit of idealism I think I have left).
I guess where you and I may see this somewhat differently is that I believe all nations are potential trading partners, including our potential military competitors, China and Russia. I see the strategic partnership as an alliance beyond trade (perhaps something akin to NATO) where we work to our mutual best interest to optimize production processes and prepositioning strategic deployment of some military assets and intelligence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2007, 06:35 PM
 
11,135 posts, read 14,157,625 times
Reputation: 3696
Quote:
I guess where you and I may see this somewhat differently is that I believe all nations are potential trading partners, including our potential military competitors, China and Russia.
Actually you and I do agree on this, where we may differ...

Quote:
I see the strategic partnership as an alliance beyond trade (perhaps something akin to NATO) where we work to our mutual best interest to optimize production processes and prepositioning strategic deployment of some military assets and intelligence.
I think the fair trade and commerce leads to a partnership and informal alliance due to its very nature of being beneficial to both parties. It will be by the basis of trade and commerce that greater future cooperation will flourish from. What stands in the way of such partnerships is that underlying fundamental human desire of greed and power. As many have pointed out our national mentality of, "Me the people" instead of we the people, also pertains to the international realm. The double edged sword of nationalism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2007, 07:26 PM
 
951 posts, read 1,641,289 times
Reputation: 800
NewToCa and TnHilltopper both have excellent points. I have to agree with Tn in theory, but trying to change greed will be difficult. It's like trying to get the teenager to drop the ipod and have a conversation. May never happen. I'm hopeful that one day this society will overcome those things.

As far as trade, here's a good read:

Trade Promotion Authority (http://www.truthabouttrade.org/article.asp?id=7811 - broken link)

Even Charlie Rangel wanted the extension, and I generally don't like what he has to say.
Let's see if the Dem controlled Congress can get past this, as I think it's vitally important.
Let's also see what the hopefuls have to say!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2007, 09:57 PM
 
11,135 posts, read 14,157,625 times
Reputation: 3696
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryfry View Post
NewToCa and TnHilltopper both have excellent points. I have to agree with Tn in theory, but trying to change greed will be difficult. It's like trying to get the teenager to drop the ipod and have a conversation. May never happen. I'm hopeful that one day this society will overcome those things.
I would never assert that I could
"change greed" or even that attempting to do so would be a worthy endeavor as it would not. In order for society to overcome such things, the individuals that make up that society must do so. There in lies the challenge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top