Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Article: Obama Says U.S. Long-Term Debt Load ‘Unsustainable’
- This topic has 185 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 7 months ago by
wannabe2077.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 15, 2009 at 6:42 PM #400681May 15, 2009 at 6:55 PM #400008
Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=Arraya][quote=pri_dk][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I think we should be very careful and keep a close on both the Chinese and Russians. Those two getting together is a recipe for disaster.[/quote]
Look at the charts that afx114 posted. Add China and Russia together and they are still insignificant. And the two don’t exactly get along – so there would not be much synergy even if they combined their forces.
The US military is focused in China because they need a “big” enemy to justify the big budgets, the big weapons systems, and the big contracts. All those generals want to be sure that they have a cushy consulting job in some program office when they retire.
[/quote]
China needs Russia for energy. They just set up oil contract usurping the market. So, they are strategic alliances out of necessity.
[/quote]Arraya: Yup. And anyone that doubts China has hegemonic ambitions outside of their own region clearly hasn’t been following the news.
China very much wants to be a player on the world stage, geo-politically speaking, and they recognize that in order to maintain their economy, they’re going to need energy and plenty of it.
Russia is starved for hard currency and has plenty of energy, weapons and technology to sell. China is a natural market for them because of proximity and demand.
You can also bet Putin has ambitions of his own. Whether or not these ambitions are realistic is beside the point. He is an ultra-nationalist with a virulent hatred of the US.
Nature abhors a vacuum and when the eventual US pullback occurs, someone will need to step up and fill the void.
May 15, 2009 at 6:55 PM #400256Participant[quote=Arraya][quote=pri_dk][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I think we should be very careful and keep a close on both the Chinese and Russians. Those two getting together is a recipe for disaster.[/quote]
Look at the charts that afx114 posted. Add China and Russia together and they are still insignificant. And the two don’t exactly get along – so there would not be much synergy even if they combined their forces.
The US military is focused in China because they need a “big” enemy to justify the big budgets, the big weapons systems, and the big contracts. All those generals want to be sure that they have a cushy consulting job in some program office when they retire.
[/quote]
China needs Russia for energy. They just set up oil contract usurping the market. So, they are strategic alliances out of necessity.
[/quote]Arraya: Yup. And anyone that doubts China has hegemonic ambitions outside of their own region clearly hasn’t been following the news.
China very much wants to be a player on the world stage, geo-politically speaking, and they recognize that in order to maintain their economy, they’re going to need energy and plenty of it.
Russia is starved for hard currency and has plenty of energy, weapons and technology to sell. China is a natural market for them because of proximity and demand.
You can also bet Putin has ambitions of his own. Whether or not these ambitions are realistic is beside the point. He is an ultra-nationalist with a virulent hatred of the US.
Nature abhors a vacuum and when the eventual US pullback occurs, someone will need to step up and fill the void.
May 15, 2009 at 6:55 PM #400488Participant[quote=Arraya][quote=pri_dk][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I think we should be very careful and keep a close on both the Chinese and Russians. Those two getting together is a recipe for disaster.[/quote]
Look at the charts that afx114 posted. Add China and Russia together and they are still insignificant. And the two don’t exactly get along – so there would not be much synergy even if they combined their forces.
The US military is focused in China because they need a “big” enemy to justify the big budgets, the big weapons systems, and the big contracts. All those generals want to be sure that they have a cushy consulting job in some program office when they retire.
[/quote]
China needs Russia for energy. They just set up oil contract usurping the market. So, they are strategic alliances out of necessity.
[/quote]Arraya: Yup. And anyone that doubts China has hegemonic ambitions outside of their own region clearly hasn’t been following the news.
China very much wants to be a player on the world stage, geo-politically speaking, and they recognize that in order to maintain their economy, they’re going to need energy and plenty of it.
Russia is starved for hard currency and has plenty of energy, weapons and technology to sell. China is a natural market for them because of proximity and demand.
You can also bet Putin has ambitions of his own. Whether or not these ambitions are realistic is beside the point. He is an ultra-nationalist with a virulent hatred of the US.
Nature abhors a vacuum and when the eventual US pullback occurs, someone will need to step up and fill the void.
May 15, 2009 at 6:55 PM #400545Participant[quote=Arraya][quote=pri_dk][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I think we should be very careful and keep a close on both the Chinese and Russians. Those two getting together is a recipe for disaster.[/quote]
Look at the charts that afx114 posted. Add China and Russia together and they are still insignificant. And the two don’t exactly get along – so there would not be much synergy even if they combined their forces.
The US military is focused in China because they need a “big” enemy to justify the big budgets, the big weapons systems, and the big contracts. All those generals want to be sure that they have a cushy consulting job in some program office when they retire.
[/quote]
China needs Russia for energy. They just set up oil contract usurping the market. So, they are strategic alliances out of necessity.
[/quote]Arraya: Yup. And anyone that doubts China has hegemonic ambitions outside of their own region clearly hasn’t been following the news.
China very much wants to be a player on the world stage, geo-politically speaking, and they recognize that in order to maintain their economy, they’re going to need energy and plenty of it.
Russia is starved for hard currency and has plenty of energy, weapons and technology to sell. China is a natural market for them because of proximity and demand.
You can also bet Putin has ambitions of his own. Whether or not these ambitions are realistic is beside the point. He is an ultra-nationalist with a virulent hatred of the US.
Nature abhors a vacuum and when the eventual US pullback occurs, someone will need to step up and fill the void.
May 15, 2009 at 6:55 PM #400691Participant[quote=Arraya][quote=pri_dk][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I think we should be very careful and keep a close on both the Chinese and Russians. Those two getting together is a recipe for disaster.[/quote]
Look at the charts that afx114 posted. Add China and Russia together and they are still insignificant. And the two don’t exactly get along – so there would not be much synergy even if they combined their forces.
The US military is focused in China because they need a “big” enemy to justify the big budgets, the big weapons systems, and the big contracts. All those generals want to be sure that they have a cushy consulting job in some program office when they retire.
[/quote]
China needs Russia for energy. They just set up oil contract usurping the market. So, they are strategic alliances out of necessity.
[/quote]Arraya: Yup. And anyone that doubts China has hegemonic ambitions outside of their own region clearly hasn’t been following the news.
China very much wants to be a player on the world stage, geo-politically speaking, and they recognize that in order to maintain their economy, they’re going to need energy and plenty of it.
Russia is starved for hard currency and has plenty of energy, weapons and technology to sell. China is a natural market for them because of proximity and demand.
You can also bet Putin has ambitions of his own. Whether or not these ambitions are realistic is beside the point. He is an ultra-nationalist with a virulent hatred of the US.
Nature abhors a vacuum and when the eventual US pullback occurs, someone will need to step up and fill the void.
May 15, 2009 at 6:58 PM #400013afx114
ParticipantImagine if we took 1/4 of that defense budget and poured it all into.. oh, I dunno… energy independence research and technology. We’d have solar powered tanks in no time! And we’d still be spending 4+ times more on defense than all other countries combined.
Energy and defense are irrefutably intertwined, so why not slip some energy funding into the defense budget with the goal of eventually making obsolete the expensive and never-ending quest to secure energy in the Middle East and/or Africa?
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower
May 15, 2009 at 6:58 PM #400261ParticipantImagine if we took 1/4 of that defense budget and poured it all into.. oh, I dunno… energy independence research and technology. We’d have solar powered tanks in no time! And we’d still be spending 4+ times more on defense than all other countries combined.
Energy and defense are irrefutably intertwined, so why not slip some energy funding into the defense budget with the goal of eventually making obsolete the expensive and never-ending quest to secure energy in the Middle East and/or Africa?
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower
May 15, 2009 at 6:58 PM #400493ParticipantImagine if we took 1/4 of that defense budget and poured it all into.. oh, I dunno… energy independence research and technology. We’d have solar powered tanks in no time! And we’d still be spending 4+ times more on defense than all other countries combined.
Energy and defense are irrefutably intertwined, so why not slip some energy funding into the defense budget with the goal of eventually making obsolete the expensive and never-ending quest to secure energy in the Middle East and/or Africa?
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower
May 15, 2009 at 6:58 PM #400550ParticipantImagine if we took 1/4 of that defense budget and poured it all into.. oh, I dunno… energy independence research and technology. We’d have solar powered tanks in no time! And we’d still be spending 4+ times more on defense than all other countries combined.
Energy and defense are irrefutably intertwined, so why not slip some energy funding into the defense budget with the goal of eventually making obsolete the expensive and never-ending quest to secure energy in the Middle East and/or Africa?
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower
May 15, 2009 at 6:58 PM #400696ParticipantImagine if we took 1/4 of that defense budget and poured it all into.. oh, I dunno… energy independence research and technology. We’d have solar powered tanks in no time! And we’d still be spending 4+ times more on defense than all other countries combined.
Energy and defense are irrefutably intertwined, so why not slip some energy funding into the defense budget with the goal of eventually making obsolete the expensive and never-ending quest to secure energy in the Middle East and/or Africa?
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower
May 15, 2009 at 7:05 PM #400018Eugene
ParticipantSoviets and Chinese lost more MiG-15’s during the Korean War than Americans lost F-86’s. By 1970’s things were relatively even. MiG-29 first flew in 1977, not long after the end of the Vietnam War. It was a good aircraft at the time. It may have outperformed older F/A-18’s (A & B). Most F/A-18’s currently in Navy service are Super Hornets (E & F), which are newer, more powerful, and have stealth capabilities, though they are not as stealthy as F-22 and F-35.
During 1980’s, Soviet military tech was already getting stagnant. Domestic computer industry was primitive (suffice to say that, by the end of the 80’s, most Soviet computers were IBM 360 ripoffs), the whole system was mired in bureaucracy. 90’s were a lost decade. They’ve been trying to turn things around recently, but it’s hard.
May 15, 2009 at 7:05 PM #400266ParticipantSoviets and Chinese lost more MiG-15’s during the Korean War than Americans lost F-86’s. By 1970’s things were relatively even. MiG-29 first flew in 1977, not long after the end of the Vietnam War. It was a good aircraft at the time. It may have outperformed older F/A-18’s (A & B). Most F/A-18’s currently in Navy service are Super Hornets (E & F), which are newer, more powerful, and have stealth capabilities, though they are not as stealthy as F-22 and F-35.
During 1980’s, Soviet military tech was already getting stagnant. Domestic computer industry was primitive (suffice to say that, by the end of the 80’s, most Soviet computers were IBM 360 ripoffs), the whole system was mired in bureaucracy. 90’s were a lost decade. They’ve been trying to turn things around recently, but it’s hard.
May 15, 2009 at 7:05 PM #400498ParticipantSoviets and Chinese lost more MiG-15’s during the Korean War than Americans lost F-86’s. By 1970’s things were relatively even. MiG-29 first flew in 1977, not long after the end of the Vietnam War. It was a good aircraft at the time. It may have outperformed older F/A-18’s (A & B). Most F/A-18’s currently in Navy service are Super Hornets (E & F), which are newer, more powerful, and have stealth capabilities, though they are not as stealthy as F-22 and F-35.
During 1980’s, Soviet military tech was already getting stagnant. Domestic computer industry was primitive (suffice to say that, by the end of the 80’s, most Soviet computers were IBM 360 ripoffs), the whole system was mired in bureaucracy. 90’s were a lost decade. They’ve been trying to turn things around recently, but it’s hard.
May 15, 2009 at 7:05 PM #400555ParticipantSoviets and Chinese lost more MiG-15’s during the Korean War than Americans lost F-86’s. By 1970’s things were relatively even. MiG-29 first flew in 1977, not long after the end of the Vietnam War. It was a good aircraft at the time. It may have outperformed older F/A-18’s (A & B). Most F/A-18’s currently in Navy service are Super Hornets (E & F), which are newer, more powerful, and have stealth capabilities, though they are not as stealthy as F-22 and F-35.
During 1980’s, Soviet military tech was already getting stagnant. Domestic computer industry was primitive (suffice to say that, by the end of the 80’s, most Soviet computers were IBM 360 ripoffs), the whole system was mired in bureaucracy. 90’s were a lost decade. They’ve been trying to turn things around recently, but it’s hard.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.