Originally Posted by Hertha (Post 10691962)

Though an alternative interpretation could be that, had this happened in the UK, there would be two dead police officers and a maniac on the loose.

Originally Posted by Hertha (Post 10691981)

Probably not, but I'd imagine that some do. They certainly have firearms related crime in the UK, and unarmed officers have been killed.

Originally Posted by Jingsamichty (Post 10691984)

You're right. Let everyone buy all the guns they want then. That'll stop the gun crime.

Originally Posted by MarkG (Post 10692023)

There is no correlation between legal gun ownership and use of guns by criminals.

Originally Posted by MarkG (Post 10692023)

A hundred years ago anyone in Britain could walk into a store and buy any gun they wanted, use of guns by criminals was no worse than today, and passers by even lent their gun to the police if they were chasing a violent criminal.

Originally Posted by Zen10 (Post 10692065)

The main problem is the collapse of the rule of law across the West, especially in degrading societies like the US and Britain. By degrading, I mean economies that have had their day and are contracting. This is the issue, rather than gun ownership per se, although I don't see the need for automatic weapons, and they certainly were not available to the Edwardians to whom you rightly refer.

Originally Posted by Oink (Post 10692094)

The world's largest economy, with a GDP of $15+ trillion last year and growing at 2+% this year is hardly contracting. :rofl:

Originally Posted by Zen10 (Post 10692106)

1. US national debt is $16,802,326,290, 501.20.

Originally Posted by Novocastrian (Post 10692117)

That's already out of date. ;)

Originally Posted by Zen10 (Post 10692106)

When you get back up off the floor from your chortling, you might like to consider the following three facts:

1. US national debt is $16,802,326,290, 501.20. Bigger than the US GDP of $14.9 trillion.

2. US annual deficit of $1.4 trillion, which is of course making the above disparity between income and expenditure grow, or the economy contract, whichever you prefer.

3. US share of world GDP is rapidly contracting. It has fallen 32% since 2001 alone. It was 31% in 2001, now it is 21%. In 1945 it was 50%. Note the way the figures decrease in size: 50%, 31%, 21%. Imagine what they will be in 2050.

None of these things bring me pleasure, but now you've stopped laughing and got up off the floor you can see that the situation is in negative trend and it's going to wipe the smiles off a lot more faces over the next 20 years as well.

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 10692217)

Either suicidal or very stupid. Possibly both.

Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 10692187)

Other countries improving is not the same as the US worsening. There isn't some fixed amount of GDP to go around, so talking about percentages says nothing about standard of living in the US or anywhere else.

As for debt, the people that really need to worry about that are its creditors. They are the ones that will be ****ed if the US defaults or prints.

Originally Posted by Zen10 (Post 10692241)

The US will not, ever, default, because all US debt is denominated in US dollars, which it can print whenever it likes. If it did default, its credit rating would go into the toilet and the global reserve currency would go from safe haven to massive risk overnight, and the entire global financial system would collapse.

Originally Posted by Zen10 (Post 10692241)

I disagree. Share of global GDP, especially comparative to places like China, has economic and foreign policy implications. As for local economic figures, we have seen that the US debt is unrepayable, larger than its GDP, and getting worse every year. My view is that the US right now is roughly where Britain was in about 1950.

The US will not, ever, default, because all US debt is denominated in US dollars, which it can print whenever it likes. If it did default, its credit rating would go into the toilet and the global reserve currency would go from safe haven to massive risk overnight, and the entire global financial system would collapse.

Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 10692264)

No, your initial claim was that the us and UK are in decline and you used the percentage share of global GDP to 'prove' this. This is just wrong. China becoming rich doesn't make the us poor and of course there are policy implications - but this doesn't make your original premise right.

Its good that you understand that us debt is everyone's problem though. Especially and they've got the biggest military.

Originally Posted by Zen10 (Post 10692343)

Your argument, which in extremis is saying there is nothing wrong with the Chinese economy being 90% of global GDP and America being 10%, so long as America is rich, is wrong.

Originally Posted by Zen10 (Post 10692343)

The US's internal wealth is irrelevant if China is richer and more powerful, and of course economy is ultimately a zero sum game in a closed system with finite resources.

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 10692217)

Either suicidal or very stupid. Possibly both.

Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 10692355)

No, you said they are contracting economies. Which is false. You then gave the % share of GDP as proof. It's not. Don't extrapolate what I said beyond that - yes you are right that 90%/10% in chinas favour wouldn't be good for the US.


Are you a marxist because that's what he said.

It's not a closed system anyway; we are orbiting a huge practically infinite energy supply for starters. And then there's all that stuff floating around in space, it's only a matter of technology advances to get at it. Have a bit of optimism man!;)

Originally Posted by Zen10 (Post 10692383)

Yes, they are contracting economies, in terms of their share of global GDP, and this is what I was getting at, precisely. It is their relative weakness on the global stage that has changed the way the citizens perceive their own nations. I clearly referred to the US economy as having had its day, and this is patently the case in global terms. As for a comparative analysis with itself in absolute terms, it contracts and expands, like any other economy.

Originally Posted by Hertha (Post 10692413)

At least the police officers had the option of responding in kind. This wasn't an option for John Speed, Roger Brereton or Ian Broadhurst, all of whom were killed in a country where there is no constitutional right to bear arms.

Originally Posted by Hertha (Post 10692430)

I'm sure that their families would be consoled by this.

Originally Posted by Zen10 (Post 10692383)

No, I am the opposite of a Marxist. I'm not going to relax on the subject of resources on the grounds we can mine Mars for them just yet, as no space mining has shown itself to be cost effective. For this reason, we are in a closed system with finite resources, and our economy is one that requires constant growth to stop itself imploding.

Originally Posted by Zen10 (Post 10692383)

All the states in the system will do whatever they have to do to secure resources for themselves. China's economy is growing, but in absolute and relative global terms, the US's is shrinking in terms of its size to China's. This will have an effect on military budgets and spheres of influence over the next 25 - 50 years, making this planet unrecognisable to what we see today.

Originally Posted by Hertha (Post 10692413)

At least the police officers had the option of responding in kind. This wasn't an option for John Speed, Roger Brereton or Ian Broadhurst, all of whom were killed in a country where there is no constitutional right to bear arms.

Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 10692440)

I dunno, that sounds pretty marxist to me. My view is that the economy does not require constant growth, that's only politicians who want to get elected. The economy has no requirements - it just is.

It's not a closed system either - we have quadrillions of joules of energy hitting the earth every day. The sun is a vast and mostly untapped infinite resource - oil is just stored solar energy really.

Also, space mining might not be cost effective now, but at some point it's going to happen. You are talking about 25 to 50 years in the future. I wouldn't bet on it not happening in that time. The tech more or less exists to do it now and just it's a matter of priorities.

I also wouldn't be surprised if oil is being phased out by then. Other than that, I'm not sure what other resources are set to run out in that time. Certain isotopes of helium? Rare earth metals (not very likely, they aren't that rare - japan has just found loads)? Nuclear fuels?

Personally I don't think it matters if a resource runs out, something will take it's place - technology will solve the problems over time. Your world view is unnecessarily miserable and I think you should cheer up a bit.


In absolute and relative terms eh? Look, you said up thread that the US economy was contracting - this is wrong, but fair enough, you actually meant in comparison to china. Ok, lets move on.

Originally Posted by Hertha (Post 10692435)

Well, if you care to look to the original post, you will find that it involved an armed madman attempting to shoot two police officers. They were able to return fire and save their lives.

I suppose that this was the point of the original post.

Originally Posted by Zen10 (Post 10692532)

I want the world you describe (space mining, free kilojoules, etc) I'm just not as optimistic as you are any more. I see a big fight for resources, particularly oil and fresh water coming up on the horizon. The reason I argue the system requires constant growth is because this is the only way previous debt can be repaid. In terms of international politics, I am absolutely fundamentally opposed to the Marxist focus and interpretation of events, and agree with them only on the basics.

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 10692674)

I wonder if you are not taking a slightly Australian tinged view on resource consumption, based on the surge of Chinese mining activity and demand down under. A big fight is not a forgone conclusion. New technologies and energy sources are being developed which may redefine resource competition. Also, bear in mind that as economies mature and modernise, global population may well fall. In short, it's not all doom and gloom for the West.

Originally Posted by Zen10 (Post 10692759)

I don't think it's doom and gloom for the West - I think the West will win any competition for resources, so long as it doesn't happen too far in the future. New tech and energy resources - maybe. We use a hell of a lot of oil though.

Originally Posted by Beaverstate (Post 10692768)

It is about far more than oil. Natural gas is nearly as important, possibly more so in the near future. Reserves of NG are increasing daily.:amen: