The Rise and Fall of Civilizations

Ref:#15 by masadi on January 27, 2006 8:38pm PT

My basic question is still valid: If war economy is so good, then how come we had almost 0% growth in 2005?

To clarify your post:

So the growth rate of 3.5% benefitted the top execuitves. Is that what you are suggesting?
And the inflation rate of 3.5% harmed mostly those at the bottom?

So, taken together, the actual US growth rate still = 0%. Right?

Or should we start developing a new barometer of growth rate/inflation rate for the rich and growth rate/inflation rate for the poor for all the economies of the world.

{The massive tax cuts to the very rich, which did not translate into spending,}
So, the poor has the power to inflate the economy. Now, does that make any sense to you?

{as if everyone the mc donald`s fry cook and the ceo of the oil corp are equal players in the field} No, actually you are suggesting that the poor are the ones who contributed to the rise in inflation. How is that possible?

{If we did not have all that military spending related by fact and proxy to the US military adventure in Iraq and the so called ``war on terror``, you would have negative growth.}

So, indeed war economy is good for the national economy. Is that wrong to have?

{This war economy spending did bail out the US economy in the face of massive job loss, and tax cuts to the rich.}

---

So in a nut shell, you are suggesting that were it not for the war economy the actual US economic growth would have been negative, much negative. So why not have a war economy everytime the US economy is getting screwed?

I recommend a book : ``Collapse`` by Jared Diamond (Pulitzer Prize winner) published by Viking, a member of the Penguin group, which analyses the resons behind the fall of several civilisations - Anasazi, Maya, Vikings in Greenland, etc. Excellent reading !

#12 behram 1 states <<< {This is how I see it. }

Well, you see it wrong then. Put on some new pair of glasses.

US 2005 GDP growth was 3.5%

US 2005 Inflation was 3.5%

Actual growth = 0%

How come the usual mantra that war is good for the economy did not come true in 2005? >>>

You cannot use crude measures like these to measure what is actually going on. The growth rate, since there was a net job loss, benefitted a few at the top. The inflation rate harmed mostly those at the bottom. The massive tax cuts to the very rich, which did not translate into spending,ensured that the growth was not what it could have been, while the massive deficit spending mostly on the military industries ensured that inflation went up together with the rise in the growth rate (that was offset like I said by the tax cuts). The rise in fuel costs is also a big part of the inflation, that price hike was largely fictitious and resulted in huge profits for the oil corps.

You are using crude measures with absolutely no sense of how to understand them, as if everyone the mc donald`s fry cook and the ceo of the oil corp are equal players in the field and then concluding based upon that ignorance. Your partisanship rather than anything I write is quite bipolar. If we did not have all that military spending related by fact and proxy to the US military adventure in Iraq and the so called ``war on terror``, you would have negative growth. This war economy spending did bail out the US economy in the face of massive job loss, and tax cuts to the rich.

The US government`s discretionary spending on military/defense in the discretionary part of the budget is greater than the SUM TOTAL of its spending on all other programs combined and easily reaches over $750 billion when we add the non-discretionary to this based upon a line by line analysis of the US budget.

You can get confirmation from a conservative (not left friendly) Heritage Foundation economists

[quote] The American economy has grown much faster in recent years than many economists thought possible, especially in the wake of the terror attacks of 9/11. A vigorous public policy response turned the 2001 recession into one of the mildest downturns in modern history dating back to 1947, the year comprehensive official statistics were first recorded by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). [end quote]http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm601.cfm

Compare these real growth rate difference in the pre and post 9/11 era

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/28/opinion/28sat1.html?hp

Editorial

Straight Talk Needed on Pakistan

Pakistan`s prime minister came to the White House this week and pretended that the people of Pakistan highly value their country`s current close military relationship with the United States. President Bush reciprocated by pretending in his public comments that the American airstrikes that killed 18 Pakistani civilians earlier this month were not Topic A in that relationship. Even diplomacy requires more direct talk than this.

Those strikes were legitimately aimed at top fugitive leaders of Al Qaeda, but hit innocent women and children. Pakistan`s people deserve a good explanation, and since they haven`t heard one from their leaders, Mr. Bush should have provided it.

Washington needs a strong and healthy partnership with Pakistan if it is to have any chance of eliminating Qaeda`s leaders, defeating a resurgent Taliban and turning back nuclear weapons proliferation. But strong and healthy partnerships are not built around political charades. And that is the only way to describe the events in Washington last week.

Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz is a decent, intelligent man. But real prime ministers, including the ones Pakistan had in the 1990`s, come out of democratically elected parliaments. Mr. Aziz was appointed by a military dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who has yet to permit the democratic elections he has repeatedly promised since his coup more than six years ago.

That makes it awkward for Mr. Aziz to deliver messages about how highly the Pakistani people value their ties with Washington, particularly when just about every poll and street demonstration suggests just how unpopular those ties have become. One crucial reason General Musharraf gets so little pressure from the Bush administration about restoring democracy is the almost universal assumption in Washington that only a dictator can deliver Pakistani military cooperation.

That had better not be true because Washington will need support from Pakistan for a long time, and General Musharraf, who has already survived several assassination attempts and again faces serious challenges, cannot stay in power indefinitely. He has also proved to be unable, or unwilling, to close down the sanctuaries that three different groups of terrorists — Qaeda, Taliban and Kashmiri — have established along three Pakistani borders.

The most important of these to the United States are the safe zones that fugitive Qaeda leaders established after fleeing the Tora Bora caves in Afghanistan four years ago. It is inexcusable that a Pentagon already looking ahead to Iraq did not pour in enough American troops to block the escape of Osama bin Laden and his top deputies, the masterminds of the 9/11 attacks. Attacking them in wartime Afghanistan would have been far simpler, militarily and politically, than trying to catch up with them in tribal areas that even the Pakistani Army can`t control. But that is where they are now, and where America`s war against them must be fought.

It is not enough for Mr. Bush to exchange periodic pleasantries with General Musharraf and Mr. Aziz. He needs to address the concerns of the Pakistani people as well. A franker public discussion of the airstrikes would have been a good place to start.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

{This is how I see it. }

Well, you see it wrong then. Put on some new pair of glasses.

US 2005 GDP growth was 3.5%

US 2005 Inflation was 3.5%

Actual growth = 0%

How come the usual mantra that war is good for the economy did not come true in 2005?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

The article is good as a starting point hypothesis but lacks substance that can reveal evidence, especially regarding modern societies, or the current world system. Ibn Khaldun discussed the rise and fall of societies based upon social solidarity, which was then picked up by Durkheim and his concept of social solidarity (the rise), which later in a society`s history gives way to anomie and disintegration (the fall). So you cannot just say that the author of this article is talking nonsense.

However, compared to societies of the past which had power and control, direct coercive control, which was more subject to the kind of influence that the author talks about, modern bureaucratic societies like the US have institutionalized implicit control, and they have the world as their playing field in order to ``manage`` crisis. Natural demise of societies can thus be managed more easily by these elite, those bearing the brunt of that ``management`` are the masses while the power of the elite is strengthened and perpetuated through such management. For example economic cycles and downturns are managed by the US elite via transformation of its economy into a permanent war economy. Reconstruction of Iraq (developing a devastated country), and related growth in the defense industries, can thus translate into job and wealth growth at home, and a quick recovery out of a recession, while the public is kept busy with maximal consumption and fear, that perpetuates such a system.

Bad managers like GW Bush, who deny crumbs to the poor while helping the corporate elite are thus a “blessing” for the world in that they reveal cracks in the all encompassing shroud. During such periods we hope that the public recognizes the facade (or matrix if you will) that encompasses their life, which is a mirage, based on false rhetoric of freedom, democracy and human rights. During such periods we have hope that this system of tyranny will collapse due to public action- of course brought on by acute economic circumstances, which accelerate during periods of bad management by the elite.

This is how I see it.

This is a very interesting article. Civilizations are indeed cyclical in nature. The Indian civilization was ascendent for a long while until say 1500 years ago. At that point, it started decaying and became obsessed with caste, became insular in nature and was steeped in ignorance. Thats why both muslims and british had a relatively easy time conquering India.

Muslims were ascendent at that time and were hungry to accumulate wealth, territory and knowledge. So they had an easy time winning India.

Now the tables have turned. India is ascendent once again with the same hunger to accumulate wealth, territory and knowledge. On the other hand, muslims are now decaying with the same obsession with rituals, no interest in knowledge and the obsession with insular behavior (e.g. taliban and their efforts to purfiy society). It will be interesting to see how things shape up in the future.

Leftist wet dream masquerading as an article.

Totally nonsense.

I am just suprised that this is actually on FP. Did we really not know that all civilizations come and go? IS this such a novel observation that it requires an entire essay. all this siht about the US going down the tubes...means didly squat in the face of facts. Even in 2050, US economy will still be the second largest in the world. While China and INdia ave trouble managing large populations with assymetric growth in productive segments (India too many young people, China with the large segment of the elderly (1 child policy)), the US will be humming along efficiently at a per capita GDP of around $120K/year to china`s $68K and INdia`s $48K. It will take another 50-100 years for these countries to establish, master and promote their brand of capitalism..i.e. commercialism of innovation. Having large pools of scientists is good, but it doesn`t mean value is created..owning patents is just one aspect of value creation, ability to commericalize is what matters, this is what US has. Strong banking system, strong regulatory and legal system.

this puppy ain`t going anywhere...when a country like the US has a 2 decade lead on technology innovation over EU, fiscal deficits fuel much of this. Check out how much the US spends on R&D and how much the EU does. It takes a category 5 hurricane to wreak havoc on second tier cities in the US. A heatwave kills 10,000 in france.

So get a grip and pipe down.

not a chance.....sir

sorry to inform you ....this uncivilization led by the fearsome uncivilized Mongoloid the Bush Khan of Crawfor Texas is NOT on the Decline -- will NEVER decline...

because .....armed with the WMDs -- that is the Weapons of Mass Democraczies -- it is on the road to conquer and Islamize ALL secular Muslim lands -- before it itself converts to Islam and turns into another world conquerer -- Timur the Lame excuse for a world leader.....

Major Kala Saab:

I wonder if you keep your old , I mean 1st Yr.cadet papers to be recycled just like what you have done here! I am sure you have done your duties in the army well and we are all proud of your patriotism and duty. Now that you are in the Civvy life, may I suggest you read atleast few good books before you attempt writing subjects like ,`` Rise and Fall of Civillizations`.

Sa!

If that rule be the case, what about the fallen ones, do they ever become big some day? Will Rwanda ever become a power to be recognized?

Isn`t there a spell checker before article are posted?

Vaisey, pretty good 7th grade essay, my friend.