The Five Stages of Collapse

China isn't truly Communist anyway... they embrace the free market with arms open. They justify it by saying that Capitalism will eventually lead to another Revolution in its borders by creating inequity between the classes. Gee, wasn't Revolution their job in the first place? I guess, in the mean time, let's rake in profits!

It seems to this old truckdriver that if your best customer (Consumer America) goes down, the producers (China, India) would go down as well.

Maximus Zeebra said:

I am not eager for the collapse of the US.. But when you do not see your own collapse coming, it will be impossible to prevent it. I am eager to warn, and I want you to avoid collapse.

Broadly I believe in the collapse of the capitalist economic model and the failure of democracy as we know it today. And such a collapse can either cause a huge collapse in both the US and Europe, or it can be changed with reforms. In addition for the US, there are several other things that in addition to those valid for Europe, also can bring about a collapse, increased extremism and polarization, a stagnative society in relative decline, lack of clear direction, militarism as a solution to problems not understood, suppressive almost fascist government, political problems and so fourth.

Seeing what is going on in the world and especially in the US, it would NOT surprise me if the US actually do collapse, nor would a second US civil war surprise me.

Click to expand...

Any collapse of the capitalist economic model will not result from a fault in the model, but due to not following the model.

American said:

Any collapse of the capitalist economic model will not result from a fault in the model, but due to not following the model.

Click to expand...

That's a good point... I mean, if we really had a 'Free market' form of capitalism, how is it that we can go from a healthy economy, to a recession, to the start of a depression within a 6 month period?

I wish I could say, but since we know we're not following the model; no one blame the model.

Maximus Zeebra said:

I am not eager for the collapse of the US.. But when you do not see your own collapse coming, it will be impossible to prevent it. I am eager to warn, and I want you to avoid collapse.

Broadly I believe in the collapse of the capitalist economic model and the failure of democracy as we know it today. And such a collapse can either cause a huge collapse in both the US and Europe, or it can be changed with reforms. In addition for the US, there are several other things that in addition to those valid for Europe, also can bring about a collapse, increased extremism and polarization, a stagnative society in relative decline, lack of clear direction, militarism as a solution to problems not understood, suppressive almost fascist government, political problems and so fourth.

Seeing what is going on in the world and especially in the US, it would NOT surprise me if the US actually do collapse, nor would a second US civil war surprise me.

Click to expand...

The coming collapse is the result of repeated and incessant attempts to put the chains of socialism on a formerly free people.

Socialism is the disease killing America today.

Capitalism is the cure, the only thing that can save it.

SouthernDemocrat said:

Let me point out one other thing. A lot of people on here that represent the far right seem to be remarkably ignorant of the history of communism. Nation's do not gradually embrace communism. Liberalism does not lead to communism. In fact, communist regimes have always despised liberals because of their advocacy for civil liberties.

Click to expand...

Good thing you pointed that out.

Naturally, the "liberals" you're talking about are the libertarians that embrace human rights, not the American "liberals" that are socialists who have no respect for the rights of the individual or any concept of the meaning of personal freedom or personal responsiblity.

Communists just looooove the American Liberal. (Who was it that barbequed Waco, again? Oh, that's right, a liberal president)

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Good thing you pointed that out.

Naturally, the "liberals" you're talking about are the libertarians that embrace human rights, not the American "liberals" that are socialists who have no respect for the rights of the individual or any concept of the meaning of personal freedom or personal responsiblity.

Communists just looooove the American Liberal. (Who was it that barbequed Waco, again? Oh, that's right, a liberal president)

Click to expand...

Clinton was hardly a liberal.

American said:

I wish I could say, but since we know we're not following the model; no one blame the model.

Click to expand...

Of course they're going to blame the capitalist model. They're socialists trying to get the wool over our eyes, down our bodies, and past our feet so they can tie up most securely.

SouthernDemocrat said:

Clinton was hardly a liberal.

Click to expand...

Yeah. Sure. Next you'll be telling us that he isn't a rapist.

Liberal...rapist....not much difference.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Yeah. Sure. Next you'll be telling us that he isn't a rapist.

Liberal...rapist....not much difference.

Click to expand...

If your not going to attempt to be reasonable and objective, then why get on a debate site?

The contention I made was that communist regimes do not like liberals (Read some of the things Lenin and Mao had to say about them), and that liberalism historically has not lead to Communism. If it did, Canada, Australia, Japan, and all of Western Europe would have gone communist years ago.

Communist regimes come about after revolutions, not after a nation passes an unemployment extension. Those revolutions are generally in reaction to totalitarian right wing regimes and concentrations of wealth. Whether its the Soviet Union, the PRC, or Vietnam, thats pretty much how it works.

SouthernDemocrat said:

If your not going to attempt to be reasonable and objective, then why get on a debate site?

Click to expand...

I am being reasonable.

Can't deny that Clinton's a rapist, can ya?

I mean, with a straight face.

That's cuz he's a rapist, and liberals loved him.

SouthernDemocrat said:

The contention I made was that communist regimes do not like liberals

Click to expand...

Gee. Funny. I'm sure I saw a post like that around here somewhere. Oh, yeah, there it is.

I replied to it.

Pointed out that what the old-time communists didn't like was old-time liberals, which were libertarians in modern terminology, and conservatives, not your garden variety "heck-don't-call-me-a-liberal-and-no-really-don't-call-me-socialist-either-even-though-its-true" of liberal found today infesting college campuses and halls of Congress today in America.

You did see the post where your oversight was corrected, didn't you?

You wouldn't want anyone to think that today's liberals, which Lenin would have happily called more of his "useful idiots" are the liberals the communists didn't like, would you? That would be very dishonest.

SouthernDemocrat said:

(Read some of the things Lenin and Mao had to say about them), and that liberalism historically has not lead to Communism. If it did, Canada, Australia, Japan, and all of Western Europe would have gone communist years ago.

Click to expand...

No, old-style liberalism can't lead to communism. Modern "liberalism" is nothing but a sham hiding the essentially rotten core of socialism....and that can easily turn into communism when the fabric of society is rotted enough.

Didn't you read your Hayek when you were growing up?

SouthernDemocrat said:

Communist regimes come about after revolutions, not after a nation passes an unemployment extension.

Click to expand...

Nicaragua didn't have a revolution. It merely had a stolen election, and voila they were communist and the American liberals were beside themselves at the thought that a US president would assist the people the communists in Nicaragua displaced.

Zimbabwe didn't have a revolution, they had an election, and now they're stuck with a major socialist disaster, including funny tin man dictator, that could have been avoided.

Venezeula has a dictator for life, didn't have a revolution.

SouthernDemocrat said:

Those revolutions are generally in reaction to totalitarian right wing regimes and concentrations of wealth. Whether its the Soviet Union, the PRC, or Vietnam, thats pretty much how it works.

Click to expand...

Except for where it works differently, as pointed out.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Nicaragua didn't have a revolution. It merely had a stolen election, and voila they were communist and the American liberals were beside themselves at the thought that a US president would assist the people the communists in Nicaragua displaced.

Click to expand...

You said this in another thread also. The Somoza dynasty rigged elections, stifled free speech, the national guard terrorized the peasantry, the whole administration was horribly corrupt and lacked popular support. How is supporting them or the Contras, who routinely targeted civilians, assisting the people of Nicaragua? Further how exactly was the election stolen by the Sandinistas?

BmanMcfly said:

That's a good point... I mean, if we really had a 'Free market' form of capitalism, how is it that we can go from a healthy economy, to a recession, to the start of a depression within a 6 month period?

Click to expand...

Expectations. If the pending political situation scares the crap out of those who employ people, people end up unemployed.

Frank Talk said:

You said this in another thread also. The Somoza dynasty rigged elections, stifled free speech, the national guard terrorized the peasantry, the whole administration was horribly corrupt and lacked popular support. How is supporting them or the Contras, who routinely targeted civilians, assisting the people of Nicaragua? Further how exactly was the election stolen by the Sandinistas?

Click to expand...

Yeah. The farmers got robbed all around.

Reagan helped the people of Nicaragua get their country back.

Reagan, that evil evil man.


The most evil thing he did? He pushed the Democrats' best friend, the Soviets, off a cliff. What a shame.

Frankly, I'm not wasting my time digging back thirty years to the disaster that was the Carter administration and doing your homework for you.

The point made for this thread, the point you didn't refute, was that the commies in Sandanista land STOLE an election and took power without a "revolution" as falsely claimed was necessary by some other person with an organically based refusal to see the threats rampant socialist infection presents to the future freedom and security of Americans.

I've no idea why the socialists in this country don't move to one of their socialist paradises around the world, why they insist on ruining the one country people used to flee to to escape the disasters that socialism made of their own homelands. Why can't you people move to Cuba, or Mexico? Why do you insist on wrecking the one decent country left in the world, the United States?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

The point made for this thread, the point you didn't refute, was that the commies in Sandanista land STOLE an election and took power without a "revolution" as falsely claimed was necessary by some other person with an organically based refusal to see the threats rampant socialist infection presents to the future freedom and security of Americans.

Click to expand...

I never refuted it because you never showed me how they stole the election.

Foreign observers

The Sandinistas have been at pains to convince the outside world, especially the US, that the elections were free and fair.

Approximately 400 independent foreign observers, including a number of Americans, were in Nicaragua to monitor proceedings.

The unofficial British election observer, Lord Chitnis, said proceedings were not perfect but he had no doubt the elections were fair.

Click to expand...

BBC ON THIS DAY | 5 | 1984: Sandinistas claim election victory

So I ask again, how did they steal the election?

I've no idea why the socialists in this country don't move to one of their socialist paradises around the world, why they insist on ruining the one country people used to flee to to escape the disasters that socialism made of their own homelands. Why can't you people move to Cuba, or Mexico? Why do you insist on wrecking the one decent country left in the world, the United States?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry that America isn't your own personal fiefdom and people with varying political views live here.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

The most evil thing he did? He pushed the Democrats' best friend, the Soviets, off a cliff. What a shame.

Click to expand...

He really didn't, he just proved that America has a bigger credit limit than the Soviets. He never proved that Democracy is superior to Communism, just that we could spend them into a hole.

Unfortunately, Reagan set the standard for the next nearly 30 years of Republican Presidents who had no control over their outlandish spending. Fiscal responsibility my ass.

Orius said:

There are a few key flaws in your analysis, and none of them have to do with what type of government rules in Beijing:

1) China only opened itself to capitalism, via the Special Economic Zones, in the 1980's. Its capitalism is new, and thus its growth is new.

2) China's annual growth rate is higher than any nation in the world, at 11.5% annually before the economic downturn, and is predicted to remain at approx. 7.5% through to the end of 2009 (and that is considered a 19 year low!). It has enough internal momentum to sustain large gains as its market is based on real assets.

3) China's GDP is 24 trillion RMB which equates to approximately $3.5 trillion USD annually. That is nothing to scough at for a "third world" nation.

4) The per capita GDP that you have provided calculations for is based on population alone. Of course China's will be less, it has a billion and a half people!

Additionally, your assessment of its command economy is flawed. China, for all intents and purposes, is now a capitalist economy with free enterprise. The government controls very little in terms of business expansion and investment. The Communists largely continue to control social policy in order to prevent the capitalist flow of profit from being disrupted. That is the modern China, and not the one you have described.

Click to expand...

The Government is certainly in complete control of their markets and to suggest that they aren't is willful denial.

China is a single part Communist Government that permits little in the way of freedom except to those few they deem appropriate to advance their desire to bring in export dollars.

The relevant item that you need to focus like a laser on is this:

China's national per capita income reaches $1,740 (08/18/06)

Carry on. I am amused when people desperately suggest that China is a free market economy and has better growth than any other nation but ignore the slave labor wages they pay and the lack of any environmental controls that the rest of the world's businesses deal with.

It is an economy that can exist only at the will of it's centralized Government and on the backs of the slave labor it provides the worlds manufacturers.

Cephus said:

He really didn't, he just proved that America has a bigger credit limit than the Soviets. He never proved that Democracy is superior to Communism, just that we could spend them into a hole.

Unfortunately, Reagan set the standard for the next nearly 30 years of Republican Presidents who had no control over their outlandish spending. Fiscal responsibility my ass.

Click to expand...

With this specious argument you willingly ignore the reason the USA could outspend the Soviet Union. It happened as a result that the centralized bureaucracy of the Soviet Union was unable to even feed it's people due to their complete control over all means of production; which in effect caused it's failure and collapse.

Carry on. I could go more in depth with this and use citations, but you would only ignore them in your desperate denial that the primary reason the Soviet Union collapsed was under the immense weight of the Government Bureaucracy and the failure of Communist centralized control of all facets of their economy.

Cephus said:

America has a bigger credit limit than the Soviets. He never proved that Democracy is superior to Communism, just that we could spend them into a hole.

Click to expand...

Reexamine that statement.

The reason the US could financially break the back of the USSR is because
democracy is superior to communism. Incentive based economies will always be better off because there are incentives to do better, build more efficiently, to advance your station. If 3 related positions pay the same but require different levels of work then what is the incentive to take the hardest job?

akyron said:

The reason the US could financially break the back of the USSR is because democracy is superior to communism. Incentive based economies will always be better off because there are incentives to do better, build more efficiently, to advance your station. If 3 related positions pay the same but require different levels of work then what is the incentive to take the hardest job?

Click to expand...

Except the economy had nothing to do with it. Laws prohibited the Russians from borrowing money, but it didn't stop Reagan. He just ran up the credit cards and outspent the Russians. Had they been playing by the same rules, rules that had nothing whatsoever to do with the strength of the economies in play, Reagan never would have "won".

Instead, he ran up billions in borrowing that we've still not paid off today. and you think that's a good thing?

Cephus said:

Instead, he ran up billions in borrowing that we've still not paid off today. and you think that's a good thing?

Click to expand...

Well, considering the billions borrowed went to pay for unconstitutional, and therefore illegal socialist spending programs, no.

Considering that the Democrats best pals in the world lost their Evil Empire, yes, it was a grand thing Reagan did.

I'll notice the illegal unconstitutional spending was initiated before Reagan took office, and I'll note it's still in progress today. Put the budget back inside the Constitution and that'll end the national financial problems fairly quickly.

A whole bunch of parasites might die, but who in their right mind cares about them?

BmanMcfly said:

That's a good point... I mean, if we really had a 'Free market' form of capitalism, how is it that we can go from a healthy economy, to a recession, to the start of a depression within a 6 month period?

Click to expand...

Can't happen.

Then again, America hasn't had a free market economy since Wilson violated the Constitution and sold the Congress's authority to coin money to the Federal Reserve, which promptly caused the Great Depression.

Then FDR stole the people's gold, and made the Depression even worse.

FDR also began the stupid process of providing federal guarantees to private loans. Duh! What's wrong with today's banks? Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac collapsing under the weight of all those unconstitutional loan guarantees.

Nope, the current depression is caused, as expected, by government interference.