Jim Rogers interview on about October 6.
US dollar, Gold & Silver, US debt, China buying commodities, etc.
YouTube - Jim Rogers On Fox Business Channel Oct 06 2009
Printable View
Jim Rogers interview on about October 6.
US dollar, Gold & Silver, US debt, China buying commodities, etc.
YouTube - Jim Rogers On Fox Business Channel Oct 06 2009
^ Thanks, Milkie, but it's depressing.
Don't get too depressed. Jim Rogers is Asia's number one cheerleader. Much he says has merit but let's not overlook the fact the combined GDP of the US and EU is 3 times that of all Asian economies. China is doing well in GDP growth but still a long way from equaling either the US or EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon
^ And how much debt do the big Asian countries have?
Most are creditors. Do the western economies need to clean up their deficits? You bet. Not only the governments but also individual private debt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon
1800's- the British century. Quite a remarkable feat considering the size of the place, but built on maritime and technological (Industrial Revolution) superiority, and trade dominance.
1900's- the American century. Brit's now the loyal (if fractious) side kicks, but a continuation of Anglo hegemony by more sustainable means. Trade dominance by Economic Imperialism not Colonialism, continuing technological superiority, backed up by overwhelming military & economic strength.
2000's- the Asian century. Anglo/American & Nato technological superiority eroded, economic dominance reduced to the point of indebtedness, military superiority inevitably to follow. Most of the worlds population resides in Asia too. Fait Accompli.
We are a long way from that yet, the Anglo/American/Nato/EU constellation might yet revitalise, maybe to much is being put into the so called "Asian economic miracle" let me quote Norton:Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
"Much he says has merit but let's not overlook the fact the combined GDP of the US and EU is 3 times that of all Asian economies."
but you are right it could move that way years from now, but a very dangerous scenario, because you don't really believe that such a transition would be allowed to happen without a "fight"!!, wars are being fought at this moment for the A/A/N/E group to retain access to their all important "energy supply's/influence in key areas" and the developing Asian nations are maybe even more dependant on an abundant supply of fossil fuels, they are so busy growing in the traditional manner that precious little planning and development towards green energy is being done.
It would not take much at present to stop the Asian economies dead in their tracks, just imagine a Western hypothetical total trade embargo on all Asian products as a means of self defence/attack, they are only growing so fast because we are buying.
I honestly believe that it would take a combination of some sort of self-destruction from within + Asian growth to knock over the present balance of power.
Maybe, but it's still a Fait Accompli. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by larvidchr
I'm not sure if that includes the Indian subcontinent, but it doesn't matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by larvidchr
If you compare things on a 'purchasing power parity' basis- I.e. what your dollar actually buys, then it's a whole lot closer than that.
Our society is a consumer money go round, with GDP fuelled by consumption, debt and speculation. Theirs is built on manufacture and sale of Goods, much more than Services. 'We' are both their biggest customers, and largest debtors. 'They' have money in the Bank- which once was Ours, but we spent it on their Goods- and then borrowed even more. We have Debt.
We are entering a Multipolar world order.
It would require an abrupt (and near impossible) change of current trends to retain the current balance of power. Like China, Japan and India going to War with each other, or something equally cataclysmic.Quote:
Originally Posted by larvidchr
As far as we are concerned, the self destructiveness is already within, at least in terms of a sustainable global hegemony. But look at the Brits- no longer the Worlds Power, not for a long time- but they live pretty well in the scheme of things. Decline of Empire is not tantamount to national collapse, or penury.
It ain't all bad- we just don't 'own' the Top Table anymore, we will have to share it. May as well get used to it. :)
Doesn't. Twas my number and is east Asia. Even adding India it is nearly 3 times.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
The United States military accounts for 40% of the world's "defence" spending. Although the return of China means that's going to change, it's not going to change that dramatically. Or at least it won't until peak oil really puts the cat amongst the pigeons and peering through that future fog is pretty much impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
^ The US quite clearly can't afford it, and as it's share of world GDP and trade continues to shrink, can no longer justify it. Thought it was closer to 50% actually.
It already has a minimum wage of around half that of the UK, and of course is only now getting around to providing healthcare to all of it's citizens- which ain't free. At the end of the day, this vast military spending has to be justified to the US people. A people who have no fear of being invaded.
Maybe but my point is more that the challenges which confront the world (amongst many, many problems some which stand out are in the short-term peak oil, in the medium-term other resource constraints, and in the slightly longer-term climate change - the big one) are of such profound depth, complexity, and danger that prognostications about the world which don't take these into account are completely worthless, and those that do are then very nearly too complex to fathom. India, for example, is in danger of starvation. It avoided starvation through the post-war years because of the green revolution but now massive over-pumping of fossil aquifers (combined with changes in precipitation brought about by climate change) mean that its agricultural basis is profoundly threatened (not this year, and not next year but there's a terrible crisis looming.) America certainly does face trouble with its economy and its ability to finance its hugely militarised state - and keep its population in porn, beer, and NASCAR races - but its not alone in facing problems.
Agree it's far more than needed and should be reduced but as a % GDP it's about 4% putting the US far below many countries that are far less in a position to afford it.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
Feeding your people, yes thats a big thing (as China correctly realised, and put in place) - and one problem the US certainly does not have, it is a huge exporter of food. Not to be underestimated as a strategic asset. :)
H'mm, will rising sea levels throw the whole thing into disarray? Can't write off that possibility.
^^ Good point Norton. One interesting twist in the tail though- how much US domestic manufacturing is military and aerospace? I believe it's around 50%.
For sure. 'Official' Dept of Defence spending is 21% of the Federal budget (according to Wiki, link below). However :rolleyes: :-Quote:
Originally Posted by Norton
Not wishing to be [too] awkward, but should point this out-
The recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are largely funded through supplementary spending bills outside the Federal Budget, so they are not included in the military budget figures listed .... In addition, the United States has black budget military spending which is not listed as Federal spending and is not included in published military spending figures.
Defense-related expenditures outside of the published Department of Defense budget
This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance, cleanup, and production, which is in the Department of Energy budget), Veterans Affairs, the Treasury Department's payments in pensions to military retirees and widows and their families (an amount not disclosed on official statistics), interest on debt incurred in past wars, or State Department financing of foreign arms sales and militarily-related development assistance. Neither does it include defense spending that is not military in nature, such as the Department of Homeland Security, counter-terrorism spending by the FBI, and intelligence-gathering spending by NASA.
Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Can't find any numbers on this but could be that high.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
Does supply jobs though and one of the US export leaders.;)
Like it or not, the US is the nation relied upon to provide it's allies with military support when called upon. If the US scales back, it's allies will need to spend more to pick up the slack.
The US spends over $600 billion per year. France ($45b), UK ($42b), and Germany ($35b). If the US cut military expenditures to around 2% GDP as those in the EU, the US expenditures would be around $200 billion. Seems to me the EU countries, Japan, Korea, etc. would have to increase their expenditures dramatically if the current level of military readiness is to be maintained.
You never hear him talk about Japan though. A complete basket case right now by all accounts and the current government seemingly have no clue what they are doing. The have a finance minister who is nearly as incompetent as the Thai equivalent and thats saying something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norton
They need to weaken the yen, its killing the last decent thing they have going, high tech exports, their minister was out recently talking up the value of the yen against the dollar its now what? 89? It needs to be 120-130 minumum.
If the government there don't sort out their ideas and fast, that place is going to implode soon. Mark my words.
^The Koreans are loving it.
Agree to a whole page of posts. There must be a conspiracy here somewhere.
Spin, haven't read up much yet on the new Jpn govt, but it seems to be a bit schizoid. Please add more of your insights.
Agree, Norts, if the US cuts back on its global policing, others will need to pick up the slack or maybe they will just go softy lovely dovey? Especially since Euro folks are so anti-military. Big mistake.
Look at this job chart for the current recession (red line).
Scary & ugly:
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2009/10/549.jpg
Henry Blodget: The Scariest Jobs Chart Ever
^ Think the statement is backwards. Should be employment not job losses.
Think it's right Jet. They all start at 0%.
I couldn't find a per cent, but ran into this at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19817.htm:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan
The Pentagon Strangles Our Economy: Why the U.S. Has Gone Broke
By Chalmers Johnson
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2009/10/658.jpg
From same article.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
Quote:
William D Hartung of the New America Foundation's Arms and Security Initiative and Fred Kaplan, defense correspondent for Slate.org...agree that the Department of Defense requested $481.4bn for salaries, operations (except in Iraq and Afghanistan), and equipment. They also agree on a figure of $141.7bn for the "supplemental" budget to fight the global war on terrorism -- that is, the two on-going wars that the general public may think are actually covered by the basic Pentagon budget. The Department of Defense also asked for an extra $93.4bn to pay for hitherto unmentioned war costs in the remainder of 2007 and, most creatively, an additional "allowance" (a new term in defense budget documents) of $50bn to be charged to fiscal year 2009. This makes a total spending request by the Department of Defense of $766.5bn.
But there is much more. In an attempt to disguise the true size of the U.S. military empire, the government has long hidden major military-related expenditures in departments other than Defense. For example, $23.4bn for the Department of Energy goes towards developing and maintaining nuclear warheads; and $25.3bn in the Department of State budget is spent on foreign military assistance (primarily for Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Republic, Egypt and Pakistan). Another $1.03bn outside the official Department of Defense budget is now needed for recruitment and re-enlistment incentives for the overstretched U.S. military, up from a mere $174m in 2003, when the war in Iraq began. The Department of Veterans Affairs currently gets at least $75.7bn, 50% of it for the long-term care of the most seriously injured among the 28,870 soldiers so far wounded in Iraq and 1,708 in Afghanistan. The amount is universally derided as inadequate. Another $46.4bn goes to the Department of Homeland Security.
Missing from this compilation is $1.9bn to the Department of Justice for the paramilitary activities of the FBI; $38.5bn to the Department of the Treasury for the Military Retirement Fund; $7.6bn for the military-related activities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and well over $200bn in interest for past debt-financed defense outlays. This brings U.S. spending for its military establishment during the current fiscal year, conservatively calculated, to at least $1.1 trillion.
^ Yep, it's about time the ROW started paying for their own protection.
^^ Understand your point, Norts, but I still see it as employment percentage rate, rather than a double negative.