Ruy Lopez

Celsus:
I give up. Kondratieff was refuted for a similar reason to Hegel's "spirit."

Thank you for your participation. You did learn something from this though as I did?

I'm not expecting a reply but would like to highlight a very important insight that allowed my "mainstream mentality" before to breakout of its shackles and see better. Listen to what you posted:

the BP statistical review explains the lack of growth in demand for oil as due to the East Asian crisis, which is directly a fault of reckless financial liberalisation, and that is not part of a cyclical phenomena-- another one--

The oil price rise was directly responsible for the inflation of other commodities because of the ubiquity of oil as a energy source that is used (either directly or indirectly) in the production of everything else.

The first is mere speculation and rationalization from any establishment or TV analyst. How does he know? In the second, economic input-output models, the proof that you want, says that oil price rises account for merely 6% of total inflation. Here you disclaim the very proof you want yet accept what I consider media myth and propaganda.

This is the INSIGHT that I saw. My own gov't, the media, brokers, analysts cannot be trusted. The TV business analyst has a dozen economic stories in front of him. He waits for markets to close. If the markets go up, he picks up a bullish story even if the majority of the stories are bearish. The next day if the markets go down, he contradicts himself.

The K-wave and other waves are incapable of lying. If there is a mistake, I made it by reading wrong.

Good luck Joel and see in other threads.

paul30

The US has had an empire for over a 100 years.

Gaining an empire was the explicit aim of the Spanish American war. (Also the Mexican War.)

Since then, our empire has fluctuated.

It grew most substantially after World War II.

We are now the only world empire: We are the only country with military bases all over the world. We are by far the biggest spender on the military--a military whose sole purpose is to secure materialsand markets abroad.

Generally, empires do not last too long. That is because they usually are based on untenable economics. (The US empire certainly qualifies here.) Also because their military gets tired of pacifying the provinces and becomes more interested in extorting money at home. (We have almost reached this point.)

But "long" varies. The Assyrian Empire didn't last much more than a century. The British Empire lasted about 200 years. The Roman Empire almost made it to 400 years.

Ruy Lopez

Generally, empires do not last too long. That is because they usually are based on untenable economics. (The US empire certainly qualifies here.)

In what way are their economics untenable, the US case I mean? Thanks in advance.

jerman_73

However, unlike the empires of the past, the United States, in order to maintain staus quo, needs to protect foreign investment. European and Japanese investment is vital to the health and integrity of the American economic system.

Celsus

*Bump to remind myself*

excreationist

I think the main problem with Rome was that many of the emperors, who were often born into power, made stupid decisions and stubbornly ignored advice due to their belief that they are god-like.

TealVeal

Try putting it in [ code ] [ /code] tags this should preserve the spacing.

excreationist

Apparently U.S. military spending is nearing the amount that all the other countries of the world combined spend.

spurly

Here's a great quote attributed to Colin Powell.

The Archbishop of Canterbury supposedly asked him if our plans for Iraq were an example of empire building by George Bush. He answered by saying:

"Over the years the United States has sent many of it's fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return".

It is said the the room immediately became quiet.

Ut

Of course, the reason is that it would have been quite undiplomatic to point out that the US didn't really care to take land, but only sought to ensure that this land was controlled by friendly governments, be they democracies or dictatorships.