We've had numerous threads and posts here on that deal with whether or not America (officially known as the United States of America) is an empire. The charge that we are is usually made by those who think such a thing is bad, and also usually express that there's more bad to America than good. All that aside, let's examine for a moment, if you will, what the world would look like if, on February 1, 2008, America packed its bags, went home, and closed the gates.

Here's my admittedly sketchy take on the dream of the neo-isolationists:

• All American military forces permanently stationed in foreign countries are redeployed to American territory.
• America withdraws unilaterally from all mutual defense treaties, NATO and SEATO heading the list.
• America refuses to intervene in foreign conflicts, period, whether internal or international.
• The full weight of America's military is brought to bear on any nation that attacks us, directly or through clearly identifiable proxies. After bombing them back into the Stone Age, then sending the infantry in to finish off any malcontents, we pack up and go home. No nation building, just an occasional reminder that we'd prefer not to have to come back.
• America eliminates all foreign aid to Israel.
• America eliminates all foreign aid to the Palestinians, Egyptians, Iraqis, etc.
• America eliminates all foreign aid to Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America and the Carribean, i.e. no more foreign aid to anybody.
• America implements extremely harsh measures to eliminate illegal immigration.
• America eliminates gov't funded international humanitarian missions. No tsunami or earthquake emergency aid, no AIDS effort in Africa, etc

That list should give you a sense of what its about.

Questions for debate:

1) How would the rest of the world react?

2) Would a policy of this sort increase or decrease American security and prosperity over the subsequent 5 years? 10? 25?

3) Same as #2, but for the world at large?

4) Who would benefit the most from such a policy?

5) Who would be hurt the most by such a policy?

6) How does America's involvement and role in the UN play out under this isolationist paradigm?

1) How would the rest of the world react?

It would put the responsibility of people to give to charities that support their cause. For instance if you wanted to feed the hungry you would find a charity with the same goal and donate, rather then have the government tax you for a cause you might not support and then give your tax money to the cause. At this point in time we have isolated ourself from much of the world in part to our crusading which has harmed us, our coalition of the willing is mostly the US and private contractors. Who else can we isolate ourselves from?

2) Would a policy of this sort increase or decrease American security and prosperity over the subsequent 5 years? 10? 25?

I believe it would make our country safer simply by reducing "blowback." The number one threat is terrorism, and the number one reason the terrorists hate us is because our government meddles in their affairs.

3) Same as #2, but for the world at large?

Not sure on this one. I think it depends on the area. But in retrospect I think Iraq would probably be more peaceful. Dafur on the otherhand might not be more peaceful since genocide is going on without a equally armed resistance.

4) Who would benefit the most from such a policy?

The American people. The money they are being taxed to pay for these hand outs and military operations can be used as they see fit.

5) Who would be hurt the most by such a policy?

People you use the US government to support their country at the tax payers expense. For instance supporters of the NAU, AIPAC,........

6) How does America's involvement and role in the UN play out under this isolationist paradigm?

Abstain from any votes unless they directly involve the United States.

First let me say, Bikerdad I find your ideas intriguing. I would like to know how to subscribe to your newsletter. Also I want assure that when I am crowned Governor of New York you will be among the last I enslave.... uh, I mean you can count on my support should you decide to run for office.

With that said; who cares what the rest of the world thinks? The only time we should care is when we're not the Superpower.
Well American Security isn't really much of an issue what with the oceans and militarily weak nations above and below us who basically like us anyway.

The US presence elsewhere is either a gift to the host nations or securing the economic interests of the hosting nations.
Again... who cares. If we go isolationist - screw 'em.

The US stands to get even wealthier and ultimately stronger. However dictators and rogues of all sorts will also gain power in their Hellish little sections of the world. Yet, what are they going to do attack us on our shores?
Civilized Western nations who aren't the US.
Well of course I say we attack the UN but that's probably not the answer you're hoping for... I suspect the US simply withdraws from the UN.

I love it that there are some things in policy we never have to worry about.

Like the "take our toys and go home" scenario here...
How would the rest of the world react
Anger and disgust in about equal measure. Likely our trade bases will start drying up in the West, though we'll have a kindred spirit in China.

...at least we'll think we do, until they conquer Japan and Korea.
Would a policy of this sort increase or decrease American security and prosperity over the subsequent 5 years? 10? 25?
The economic ramifications will mean we lose our friends in the area and maybe China could pull off that old German plan about allying with Mexico, but I doubt it.

It's the economics that will finish us.

Same as #2, but for the world at large?
Depends. Europe, South America, Australia and India will be fine, they've got bite. The Middle East and Africa will be not fine, but they really never have been, no change except they both become bastions of Chinese power.
Who would benefit the most from such a policy?
China and Iran.
Who would be hurt the most by such a policy?
The US. Circling the drain.
How does America's involvement and role in the UN play out under this isolationist paradigm?
It doesn't they'll move to Brazil and lose all the stuffy coats.

If you listen closely you may even hear them...


Edited to Add:
Reminds of another group that stands to gain.
Fans of the cabbage patch.

This reads like a haiku. Who are they?

1) How would the rest of the world react?

I doubt very much- anyone that wants to ramp up to our projectable power- and the high % of GDP that goes along with it- is china going to increase thier defense budget from around 1-2 or 3% to 14% +- (even higher when you figure in what we have spent on foriegn interventions)- if someone wants to spend a quarter of thier entire GDP, well, you can let them run themselves into the ground.

I just don't think there is any country today that is as imperialistic and a bunch of butt-inskies as we are.

2) Would a policy of this sort increase or decrease American security and prosperity over the subsequent 5 years? 10? 25?

You take nearly a 1/4 of our GDP and invest it in domestic issuess- ya, America becomes a MUCH better place, pretty quickly. No more debates about school funding shortages, illegal immigraion, universal health care, infrastructure crumbling etc etc- we can spend that money on the US needs, instead of Hospitals in Iraq that keep getting blown up

3) Same as #2, but for the world at large?

They all can go straight to hell as far as I am concerned- why does America need to ruin itself for folks that hate us for our intervetion in the first place? We will trade with them- but outside of that- they are on thier own- get used to it.

4) Who would benefit the most from such a policy?

America- without a doubt. We can take our entire military force and secure our borders, and protect shipping and the like with our navy- outside of that- securing our economic lifelines, NOT intervening in other countries personal affairs- we would be much better off.

Now- we CAN and should punish countries with human rights abuses economically- for instance, a levy or tax on certain countries goods, depending on thier own improvements in human rights conditions, but that doesn't mean we need to militarilay intervene.

"I am sorry China, but you use slaves to make your goods, you will have a 100% tax on all goods coming into America if you want to continue to use slaves"-

5) Who would be hurt the most by such a policy?

Hard to say- I don't think we have done ANY good with the policy we have had so far- so anything is an improvement!

6) How does America's involvement and role in the UN play out under this isolationist paradigm?

We don't need to burn bridges- we retain our veto power, retain all our powers- but let them know our contribution monetarily will be no higher than any other country with veto power, and that we will not be sending troops for any mission, or perhaps, we wll send some peace keepers, but we WILL NOT be sending one more troop than any other country.

I am cool with unanimous votes by the UN to intervene as a global community- but we will NOT be the majority player anymore- someone else will have to step up, or everyone will have to step up.

Touching optimism.

Far more likely the military budget will continue to grow and the rest of the saving will be given away in vote-buying tax cuts.


That's what they said about the Marshall Plan. (by they I meant Stalin)

What leverage would we have?

When China owns Japan and South Korea, who else are we going to buy tech from?

We can't get sanctions going against the now, how will that get better if we burn all of our bridges?


First of if we abandon the established UN funding framework they'd probably tell us we could go to hell. Second that isn't what's under discussion here.

This thread says an end to intervention not simply less.

Well then Turnea- that is more of my definition of "non-intervention"- far less, but not complete isolationism.

WWII was, historically- a great example of WHEN to intervene- we had a state-on-state war. AS far as internal civil wars and strife in other countries- hey- whatever works for them- they can't work it out- it is Darwin's law.

I don't mind some politics being played as far as what the definition of economic intervention would be- I am okay with the American poeple and Congress setting those guidelines on a country-by-country debate- and let other countries decide how they want to deal with the same problems on thier terms- that doesn't mean we can't put on the diplomatic pressure either- or even join in on sanctions-

But move in a "police force"- no way- we are done wth that kinda attitude.

We can just adopt, oh, say Canada's foiegn policy- you know, peacekeepers and such in certain situations- but on a ten thousand or less basis.

And I would also be on adding some checks to the goveremtnt to make it much harder to wage war or intervene at all.

I would even allow military personel to decide NOT to go into foriegn lands, and allow them the option to serve stateside only.

Unless both congress and the US poeple put up a 60% +1 vote for war.

It is just too easy to allow rogues to control our foriegn policy.

1) How would the rest of the world react?
Short term, the chattering classes and shallow thinkers will be happy. Security analysts, oil traders, Western European, South Korean and Taiwanese military leaders will be very, very nervous. Lotsa Israelis will start emigrating, mostly to the US.

2) Would a policy of this sort increase or decrease American security and prosperity over the subsequent 5 years? 10? 25?
Over 5 years, possibly increase. Over 10, decrease, over 25 definitely decrease.

3) Same as #2, but for the world at large?
Decrease, decrease, decrease. Multiple regional arms races would be ignited, as different nations jockeyed for power within their region knowing that the US isn't going to interfere.

4) Who would benefit the most from such a policy?
China, Russia, Brazil, Venezuela, Indonesia (maybe) and Canada.

5) Who would be hurt the most by such a policy?
The Baltic States, the Koreas, Taiwan, Israel and the people of the Middle East. The region would explode into open warfare. The world economy, as the flow of oil from the ME is "interrupted." Mexico.

6) How does America's involvement and role in the UN play out under this isolationist paradigm?
Reduced funding, refusal of any American involvement in UN military missions. Very limited involvement in UN humanitarian missions.


Under this paradigm, our "projectable power" will fall substantially, as would our spending. After all, that's one of the attractions, right?


China's military spending is currently the second highest in the world, and just behind ours at 3.8% of GDP. That, btw, is nominal GDP, not GDP by Purchasing Power Parity. By using the Purchasing Power Parity, Chinese military spending is almost the same as ours.

They won't have to spend a quarter of the GDP, unless they want to attack the US directly. China could start by knocking off Taiwan, North Korea (yea, no loss there) and South Korea. That right there puts the embyonic Pan Asian League on par with the US economy, and probably able to knock off Japan. Can you see where this is going?

Yeahhhh, right...

China's military budget could be called "Four-and-a-Half Percent Against Freedom" due to its involvement in countries like Burma, Sudan, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Uzbekistan, and Iran, not to mention its actions against freedom in Taiwan and, of course, in China itself.
...
Indeed, China's 2006 "White Paper" on national defense describes a China that is moving onto the offensive:

The Army aims at moving from regional defense to trans-regional mobility, and improving its capabilities in air-ground integrated operations, long-distance maneuvers, rapid assaults and special operations. The Navy aims at gradual extension of the strategic depth for offshore defensive operations and enhancing its capabilities in integrated maritime operations and nuclear counterattacks. The Air Force aims at speeding up its transition from territorial air defense to both offensive and defensive operations, and increasing its capabilities in the areas of air strike, air and missile defense, early warning and reconnaissance, and strategic projection. The Second Artillery Force aims at progressively improving its force structure of having both nuclear and conventional missiles, and raising its capabilities in strategic deterrence and conventional strike under conditions of informationization.

- A Chinese Military Superpower

With that in mind, do you think the Japanese will simply sit by? Not just "no", but "Heck no!" They're already reworking their defense posture and policies to account for what they percieve as the rising Chinese threat, and this is under a paradigm of continued, albeit potentially reduced American presence in the Western Pacific.

A quarter? Which body cavity did you pull that figure from? Even according to these guys, certainly not neo-Con warhawks, our military spending is less than 4.5% of GDP.

Why is your human rights imperialism any more legitimate than military imperialism? Non-intervention means don't monkey around in their business, or to put it into terms you should understand, don't be a "butt-inski". Straight up protectionism is one thing (bad, but not inconsistent with neo-isolationism), but selective protectionism based on the foreign country's domestic policies? Sounds like "butt-inski-itis" to me.

Actually I think Israel could rather hold its own. They'll get all MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) with Iran, or just nuke them first. But the Arab State know what invading Israel means, they've done it before.

I think Brazil will actually be harmed, we are an important trading partner.

I doubt the whole Middle East would blow up. Iraq, yes. Most everyone else will just pay closer attention to the Chinese.

I don't think the takeover of Japan is in any doubt. Payback is.... well it's any number of unpleasant things.

Bikerdad- just because WE go around invading countries do you need to think that China feels like going around invading everything.

Thier basic history, when not in Mongol hands- is fairly stable to thier region. It has been mostly OUR interference that has caused these wars and expasions of influence.

Right now, the chinese are the ones performing the idea of capitalist expansion of influence by jumping into markets WITHOUT military intervention- the opposite of the US.

Why would the powers that be in China lose thier base of power by destroying markets they themselves have pursued?

The Chinese have it figured out- don't need to invade militarily- invade with your economiic might.

Maybe they read that art of warfare thingy too much

I've studied China a little and I'm afraid they do have expansionist tendencies.

Present-day China used to be (and in some ways still is) a land of a wide variety of ethnic groups. The Yao. The Manchus. The Uighur. The Zhuang.

Now the Han control everything. They took over Vietnam and bits of Korea as well. The disunity of the territory prevented further expansion, except under the Mongols as you noted.

They certainly plan to take Taiwan now and i see no reason to believe they wouldn't take Korea or Japan either if it means more money and power for them.

The temporary disruption aside, long-range it's a plus for China.

This is pretty much my idea of heaven.

1) How would the rest of the world react?

Who gives a crap? American policy should be for Americans. Let the rest of them do what they want.

2) Would a policy of this sort increase or decrease American security and prosperity over the subsequent 5 years? 10? 25? Increase. We would not be sacrificing American lives for some 3rd world sewage dump. We would not be spending tax money for foreign aid to some wasteland that we have no reason to care about. In the meantime, our entire military would be more than capable of securing our borders with lethal force, ensuring that we don't become the world's landfill.
3) Same as #2, but for the world at large?

See question 1.

4) Who would benefit the most from such a policy?

The U.S.

5) Who would be hurt the most by such a policy?

Some third world troglodytes who would probably kill each other off within a decade. Culling the herd is nature's law, not mine.

6) How does America's involvement and role in the UN play out under this isolationist paradigm?

Get out of the UN. Let them do what they want. Our relationship with any country should be economic only. We trade with EVERYONE. Other than that, let them do what they want. They touch us, their dump of origin joins the dinosaurs on the list of things that just aren't around anymore.

Oh, I don't know, could be simple little things like Tibet, Korea, and Vietnam, and thats just in the last 60 years. Throw in their other mucking about (Mynamar, Sudan, India 1962, and others already listed) and it seems as though they're just a wee bit more ambitious than you'd like to represent.

Yeah, right, sure thing. And its our interference that caused China to attack India in 1962. In October, 1962. Our interference caused them to invade Tibet not once, but twice in the 20th century.

Ya, and last time I looked on the map, Tibet isn't too close to Europe or Mexico. Taiwan- they are going to own that soon anyway- and really, who cares? Same with Vietnam or North or South Korea- if they want 'em, let them have 'em. See how well they an over-extend themselves too.

Doubt very much if they plan on running Africa or Europe though

The trouble with isolationism is that it requires a thoroughly selfish outlook on life. Many other foreign policy paradigms do too, but this one is more transparent.

And I have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever- America has a right and duty to IT'S poeple- it has not one whit of duty to the 'rest of the world"- and, in fact, our duty is to our own poeple FIRST AND FOREMOST- and any sacrifice demanded of Americans for foriegn countries is downright unethical while our own goes ignored.

A country should be "selfish" by definition- it has a duty to it's poeple- NOT poeple outside it's borders-and that includes any country.

The agreement a goverment has with the governed is to take care of IT"S population- it has no such agreement or contract with countries outside it's borders.

Not really.

Not by definition.

Let's not obscure what is actually at stake. Selfish policies are a deliberate choice, not a duty of government.

I fail to understand your statement- not to be obtuse- but a nation has no duty EXCEPT to it's citizens- that is what makes a country- that is why poeple band together to form a country- thier converging self interests of protection within an accepted set of boundries.

Inherently selfless and selfish at the same time.

The US has no duty to ANYONE, ANYTHING, ANYWHERE - EXCEPT the covenent called the constitution, a contract with the citizens of America.

No where does that contract say we are supposed to free Tibet, feed Ethopia or Protect those in the Darfur region- we, as a society, can agree to do those things- but, in the end, the only duty a country has is the contract with it's citizens.

Quite frankly- the world managed to function without us being a major player prior to WW2, and it would get along just fine without our intervention.

Most of the problems we are talking about, are more because of our interference created power vacuums and shoved power structures out of equilibrium of some sort- case in point- Iraq.

It was Saddam's brutal dictatorship that kept the country together- we screwed up the power structure and equilibrium, and created a power vacuum.

We have been the imperialists, with unchecked power doing horrible things in a variety of countires, militarily- it is we that ARE the problem- NOT the solution to it.

A country is simply a defined tract of land.

A nation is a tract of land whose inhabitants have worked out some system of governance.

The purpose of that governance can vary widely and may have nothing to do with the interest of the citizenry.

Before John Locke and all that "consent of the governed" talk caught on, this was in fact typical of most government.

I simply assert that enlightened, unselfish government is as superior to the selfish kind as liberal democracy is to tyranny.

Do not mistake the status quo for the basic laws of the universe. That's Hannity talk, CR

Oh snap- I would just as soon enviserate myself with a butter knife than sound like that windbag Hannity

That being said- there is absolutley no reason that the world wouldn't bump along just fine without our interference- if anything, that notion alone is part of the arrogance that got us in so much trouble in Vietnam and Iraq.

We have spent, what, over a trillion dollars on Iraq alone?

Wouldn't America be a much safer place if we actually closed out borders and protected like, oh, about any other country in the world?

Here is what REALLY torques me off about this debate- somehow, it is good and moral to build hospitals and schools in Darfur or Iraq, but it is "socilalist" to do the same here- it is good and moral and ethical to deliver free medical care to the rest of the world, but it is "socialist" to have universal health care for our own poor citizens.

If we instututed universal health care, solved our own educational issues, rebuilt our infrastructure and took care of our troops when they returned home in some kind of moral manner-

THEN AND ONLY THEN- would I support one dollar going to another country.

We have our own starving and poor, we are obligated to take care of our own first, then others.

Well les see. Europe would be in German hands – perhaps France would be better off – you could be right. And the Russians would still hold the rest of the east – unless of course the Germans took it in the 50’s.

Ya lets let the damn world “bump along” for a few decades and see how it goes. Anyone who steps way out of line can always be nuked into the Dark Ages right?


YES- lets do it – Oh can’t cause Bush and most Dems want an open sore of a border indefinitely.




Two very different arguments. We don’t set up medical “systems” of any type. We just pour in our money. And if we are smart we will not waste it on some socialist system of delivering healthcare here.


We have our own starving and poor, we are obligated to take care of our own first, then others.



I agree – not one dime to Darfur and sure as hell no troops – let the rest of the World (or God) sort it out.

The USA is the largest debtor nation on earth. We'd have to repudiate all of our debt and never ask for another loan--could be tough sailing, as we have about a $900 billion annual trade deficit. We'd not be able to borrow to fund that deficit any more, so we'd have to forego cheap Chinese toys and auto parts, French wine, Mexican oil, etc., as we would be broke....

I'm glad someone finally noticed the elephant in the isolationists' room - America owes the rest of the world a great deal of money.

Presumably, though, the isolationists would say that's okay, the rest of the world can whistle for their money 'cos nobody would dare come and take it from us.

Which then begs the question - in an economy driven by debt-funded consumer consumption, what happens to that economy when the flow of lending gets shut off? Does the economy keep growing, or does it crash in flames?

If you work out an answer to that, please let me know, because I live in an economy fuelled by debt-funded consumer consumption as well.

1) How would the rest of the world react?
Europe - probably not much difference, at first, though over time continental Europe would have to start ramping up defence spending for themselves, probably to about the levels Britain was at 10-15 years ago (we've let it slip since then ourselves, to the point where we can't make big deployments on our own any more. Sierra Leone was small-scale in the scheme of things, but evidence that even after Iraq, foreign deployments can work if the objectives are right, the planning is done properly and the troops are trained to do what is actually required of them rather than for something else which plays better at home.)

Africa, sub-Saharan at least, wouldn't notice because there isn't a big US presence there; China would keep expanding its interests though. Similar situation for South America, only with less Chinese influence, at least to begin with.

India would probably start projecting more force abroad (and in the next decade or two I think they will anyway, regardless of what the US does) because their economy will expand to the point where they need to start doing so to protect their interests.

Russia (whose economy has boomed off the back of high energy prices) will get more muscular again too. I doubt they will become massively expansionist, though the Baltic Republics - with large ethnic Russian populations but having turned away from Russia (unlike, say, Belarus) - might come under threat. Longer term, I think Russia will join a greatly, expanded EU, which will also start to take in part of North Africa and the Middle East (probably N Africa before the middle East, but eventually they will join too).

Japan will drop some of its pacificism, as memories of WW2 defeat fade, though I don't see them becoming expansionist again any time soon.

South Korea and Taiwan will get very jittery, and could be sites of Chinese/NK agression.

The Middle East? If any region collapses into chaos, it would be here, mainly off the back of withdrawal of aid to Israel and Egypt, which would destabilise the region even further (Israel wouldn't be easilly able to make up the shortfall, and Mubarak would be far less able to contain extremist Islam). That could tip more stable countries, like Saudi or Turkey (more likely the first than the second) into trouble.

The rest of the world will eventually get tired of lending ever more cash to the USA and will start calling in some favours. Not right now, but if the US economy crashes while it still owes lots of money, expect big pressure to be brought to bear. I'm not sure this won't happen anyway, especially if the next administration doesn't start to cut spending AND raise taxes to start paying down the debt, which could trigger a recession by itself if it isn't handled delicately.

2) Would a policy of this sort increase or decrease American security and prosperity over the subsequent 5 years? 10? 25?

I think there would be an economic recession based on the rest of the world pulling the credit plug, which would damage prosperity for most Americans while it lasts. It might not be a bad thing in the longer run, though (and certainly there are always some people who do rather well out of recessions anyway).

Security-wise it would be a short-term boost. I'm not sure about the longer term, but I suspect it wouldn't all be gravy, as I can't see the Chinese sitting on their hands while the resources they need to make all the stuff they sell to Americans and Europeans are undermined by instability. If there is a US recession, I can't see them not having an interest in trying to shore up the US economy somehow that's paying for all their big building projects and economic expansion, either. I'm not sure if it would work, or if America would want to accept any help they offered, but played right it MIGHT work and turn a currently commercial relationship into a deeper and more mutually-understanding one.

Again - I'm not sure this wouldn't happen anyway, as the debt-funded economies (the US & UK being at the fore) are on shaky ground without any US isolationism.

The rest of the world would have a recession if the USA has one, though the extent would be different in different places. The UK & China are least well-placed to avoid a deep recession, I think, while the likes of Germany, Japan are best-placed. China, however, has the depth of resources to come out of it relatively quickly, perhaps dragging the USA with it (if you can afford to pay whatever price they charge for their help). The UK does not, so I fear we'd be harder hit even than the USA itself.

4) Who would benefit the most from such a policy?

The already very rich, like they always do.

5) Who would be hurt the most by such a policy?

The already very poor, like they always do.

6) How does America's involvement and role in the UN play out under this isolationist paradigm?

First off, I think American's kid themselves on just how much money they give to fund the UN as a proportion of GDP - the Japanese pay much more than you do. Also, I think you overestimate how much of your overseas military commitments are under the aegis of the UN - Pakistan has more troops under a blue flag than you do.

But it depends. A bad recession in the USA that doesn't cripple China or Russia might see a reorganisation of the UNSC. Removal of permanent membership of France and Britain in favour of an EU seat is probably overdue. And maybe the veto system itself needs an overhaul. A USA as it is now that turns isolationist would be able to stand up for itself and then some.

An almost bankrupt USA whose military might is tied up fighting food riots in its own cities just might have to eat humble pie on the international stage to get itself back on its feet. Especially if it has effectively told the rest of the world to go forth and multiply and taken it's toys away because it didn't feel appreciated enough to satisfy it's ego/hubris.

That's the trouble with wishing infectious diseases on others. Sooner or later the nasty little germs will bring you out in sores yourselves.

.
Did you miss the fact that our 12 TRILLION $$$ economy is also the biggest customer in the world. What would happen if we decided to stop buying lets say French goods of all kind.


Our debt is happily financed and always will be by people and countries that can make more money lending to us then in their own banks – the Japanese come to mind.

So don’t worry we are just fine. Now imaging what would happen if the fools in DC actually allowed and encouraged us to become independent of foreign oil! Bad times for the ME and Cahvez.

Did you miss the fact that all of your (perfectly valid) points are only true in the absence of a major (as in comparable to the Great Depression) economic recession in the USA?

I'm not saying that it's inevitable or even very likely, but if it happens, you'd stop buying French goods and Chinese goods and all sorts of other goods, and you wouldn't be able to keep generating the cash to pay the interest on your Japanese loans, so suddenly it WOULD be a better idea for them to lend to their own banks (or "save", as it used to be called). You wouldn't therefore have any significant source of finance to expand your way out of trouble. You'd be hip deep in deleted expletives.

I hope this doesn't happen - as I say, I think the UK is on a lower deck of the same boat - but it seems to be tempting fate to carry on acting as if it couldn't possibly happen.

Julian, your two post sums up the situation very well and in my view accurately, but I am afraid the Ted's of this World will never see it or understand that.

The World order is changing and changing fast and none of us can now go down the isolationist road alone and survive not even the USof A.

To be clear, nothing in my scenario implies economic isolation. It is simply my take on a modern day implementation of "avoiding foreign entanglements." I believe that we could go down the road of complete isolation, but that the costs would be extreme, both for us and for the rest of the world. Its not a course I would recommend.

Its not necessary to raise taxes nor cut spending to pay down the debt. Had the Federal gov't kept discretionary spending flat from 2001 forward, the debt would be gone in 2009. That's how much revenue has increased. Lose the massive entitlement increase (prescription drugs) and 'twould have been even quicker.

btw, why would the EU increase defense spending?

Unless the price of oil goes out of control we will not likely have a Depression and if we do we will always “pay the interest on your Japanese loans” as we do now with deficit spending. And since “we” are our biggest customer – most GDP is generated by US consumption – we can do what has worked so well in the Bush administration – LOWER taxes.

In fact we are right now in the midst of the longest boom in the countries history and even a slowdown is not expected to hurt us much. The US and world economies are strong and getting stronger.


“Fortune Magazine) -- Just how red-hot is the current worldwide expansion? "This is far and away the strongest global economy I've seen in my business lifetime," U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson declared on a recent visit to Fortune's offices.
That may come as news to many Americans, whose boom-time memories are stuck in the 1990s, when Silicon Valley was the epicenter of our growth fantasies. But the fellow now occupying Paulson's old office at 85 Broad Street in downtown Manhattan shares that upbeat view. Just returned from a ribbon-cutting ceremony in the Middle East, Goldman Sachs (Charts, Fortune 500) CEO Lloyd Blankfein waves out toward the East River as he explains how the rise of the "BRICs" has altered his strategy and his travel schedule. (BRIC is an acronym Goldman coined in 2001 reflecting the rising economic power of Brazil, Russia, India, and China.) “

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/for...34937/index.htm

Apologies if it is bad form to post in relatively old debates. ...

I suppose the general consensus in Europe is that, at the end of the day, if anything bad happens in Europe, the US military will sort it all out - so there's less of a requirement to build up large armies - or spend much on military R&D. Instead politicians can spend money on things voters like - hospitals and large and rather inefficient universities.

Of course, we like to dress this up as pacifism - Europeans have moved to a magical state beyond the need to wage war - but the reality is that we expect America to manage our defence for us. At the end of WW2 I think it made more sense than it does now.

But if America decided that it would not intervene, then Europe has to start worrying about any large,potentially aggressive, non-democratic nations nearby that might be willing to act agains the interests of the EU. I can think of one right away....

Of course, it may be that, by now, the general European electorate (France and Britain excluded) have become so anti-war that military spending didn't increase - but that would mean that most European countries would not really be able to defend themselves against a determined agressor.