[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Leading US economist Laurence Kotlikoff says he remains optimistic about solving the big structural problems plaguing global finance, but he has a grim prognosis for the US if it doesn't change fiscal and monetary policies. "We're heading the way the British Empire went, its inevitable" he says. "The [US] dollar is going to give way to the Yuan as the global currency at some point, its just a matter of time." Kotlikoff is a Professor of Economics at Boston University and will be in New Zealand next week as the Sir Douglas Myers Visiting Professor to Auckland University. He was named by The Economist as one of the world's 25 most influential economists and in 2016 and that year he ran for the US Presidency as a write-in candidate. He's also a New York Times best-selling author. While he has a strong reputation his ideas

[Tanada]

Back in the 1980's the speculation was that Germany and Japan were the USA's natural successors because unlike most democracies they practiced fiscal discipline and were not rushing down the rabbit hole of deficit spending with the same glee as the USA/UK/France at that moment in time. In the last three decades however with the end of the cold war the social forces have changed to the point that much, though not all, of that fiscal discipline has been put by the wayside in favor of buying votes much in the manner of USA/UK politicians in the post WW II era. Germany still has one of the best saving rates of any democratically elected nation, however they have spent the last decade in a massive malinvestment in diffuse intermittent renewables and closing their nuclear power plants as quickly as manageable. They also tried to look like the world good guys by throwing open the doors to a flood of poorly educated immigrants which has strained their social safety net to the breaking point.

If China can succeed then it appears they will be the clear world leader in the next period, however Russia should not be ignored as a contender. Both nations have morphed from Stalinist Communism into a system more akin to National Socialism where the government supports business with one hand but constrains it for social and national benefit with the other. The USA dances around this idea but on the one hand the things government encourages business to do are not beneficial for the society as a whole and on the other hand the blatant vote buying by government officials is driving us into destruction levels of debt. It is as if the USA took the mirror image of the system now succeeding so well in other countries as our model starting in the 1960's and after 50+ years the consequences are catching up with the extreme spending.

[diemos]

Harumph.

China has morphed into a standard crony capitalist oligopoly, communist in name only.

Russia has descended into petro-fueled gangsterism.

I wouldn't put any money on russia to be anything but a nuisance in the future. China on the other hand I expect to start throwing its weight around significantly.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '
')
If China can succeed then it appears they will be the clear world leader in the next period,

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '
')
If China can succeed then it appears they will be the clear world leader in the next period,

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Americans like to think of their country as different from those run by military regimes. They are only fooling themselves. Ever since the federal government was converted into a national-security state after World War II (without a constitutional amendment authorizing the conversion), it has been the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA that have run the government, just like in countries governed by military dictatorships. Oh sure, the façade is maintained — the façade that is ingrained in all of us in civics or government classes in high school and college: that the federal government is composed of three co-equal, independent branches that are in charge of the government. But just a façade. It’s fake. It’s a lie. It’s true that the federal government used to consist of three branches. But that quaint notion disintegrated when the federal government was converted to what

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')As the recently published National Security Strategy shows, Donald Trump has turned the expansion of the U.S. fossil fuel industry and its exports into a major component of American foreign and security policy, writes energy expert and author Michael T. Klare. In the view of the Trump administration, anyone that stands in the way of American exploitation of oil, gas and coal resources is viewed as an obstructer of the national interest, notes Klare. He warns that this policy will lead to unprecedented environmental disaster. Article courtesy TomDispatch. The new U.S. energy policy of the Trump era is, in some ways, the oldest energy policy on Earth. Every great power has sought to mobilize the energy resources at its command, whether those be slaves, wind-power, coal, or oil, to further its hegemonic ambitions. What makes the Trumpian variant – the unfettered exploitation of .

[evilgenius]

It never fails, everyone always tries to fight the last war. The last war was, and has been, over fossil fuels. Renewables have come about, but were always considered incapable of addressing the complexities of the war. They can't be fit into the paradigm. When we try we find that we can't store power made where there is wind, or that the sun doesn't shine at night.

Now, the war has brought an unwelcome consequence, climate change. Say what you will about climate change, one thing is proving certain, that there will be more uncertainty. That may be fine for cities whose only additional cost might be much more extensive snow removal in odd years. It won't be fine for cities like Phoenix, if they run out of water in any given year.

Despite a seeming isolationist posture, I think the answer is right under our noses. We can pump water uphill with wind and solar, storing the potential energy in reservoirs which would use gravity to produce energy as the water flowed downhill. In some cases the water stored could flow downhill for more than a thousand miles, making energy all along the way. But doing so would require a paradigm shift. It would require thinking ahead and addressing climate change before it got so bad that we only wished we had done something about it. It would require doing something about our attitudes toward investing in public infrastructure. It would require addressing our understanding of glorification, transitioning from that of power projection to exemplification.

[onlooker]

Totally logical. History has shown that EMPIRES because of their size and complexity need a constant stream of abundant energy to maintain their coherence.

[GHung]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', 'T')otally logical. History has shown that EMPIRES because of their size and complexity need a constant stream of abundant energy to maintain their coherence.

[onlooker]

Totally agree Ghung. Empires and in fact humans are victims of their own success. And isn"t this what is being shown to us all in epic proposition now.
In more colloquial vernacular "Don't bite off more than you can chew"

[jedrider]

We should be contemplating what the Chinese Empire will look like and how we will fit in.

[onlooker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jedrider', 'W')e should be contemplating what the Chinese Empire will look like and how we will fit in.

[asg70]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', 'H')opefully, though our empathy and compassion for each other can grow

[EnergyUnlimited]

It may fall in a stupid way. Exchange of few nukes with loons from NK with large collateral damage (Japan, SK).
Few tagets on US soil also probably hit, maybe EMP attack and miserable chaos after that.
Lets hope that Russia and China will not see US as a lame duck at the time, take a gamble on *now or never opportunity* and launch massive nuking on its own.
Barring that relatively low radioactive but very huge political fallout followed by international ostracism for causing nuclear war, then loss of allies (after nuking SK and Japan most of other allies will see themselves as disposable). Noone will want to become new USS Japan.
Loss of international stand, nuclear arms race around the world and resignation from dollar as reserve currency.
Diagnosis: Ruin by Pyrrhic victory.

All what you need to destroy an empire is few idiots in wrong place.
Not that even now US political situation is easy.

[evilgenius]

It'll be a while before the North Koreans will be capable of assaulting both South Korea and Japan fatally. To engage both of them that way would take industrial capacity. They don't have that. They probably have something more like all out commitment by a group with less capability than industry would bring. How many bombs could they make? They could, however, introduce a change in the regional way of thinking concerning nuclear weapons. China and India reached a kind of detente and limited their numbers. The threat from Pakistan has caused a lot of talk about whether India would respond with an arms build up. The detente with China has kept that from happening. We don't know what would happen if China felt an immediate threat in the way that India does from Pakistan. The arguments that keep India from building up might fall away. There could be a nuclear arms race of a sort in the region.

[vtsnowedin]

North Korea can fire a missile or missiles just one time and before the first one hits or is shot out of the sky there will be missiles enough on their way to totally whip out North Korea. This has been made very clear to them.

[diemos]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jedrider', 'W')e should be contemplating what the Chinese Empire will look like and how we will fit in.

[derhundistlos]

North Korea will not launch a pre-emptive strike. Instead, it's far more likely the US may try a first-strike, particularly if Trump believes he has to do something "bold" to deflect attention.

[vtsnowedin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('derhundistlos', 'N')orth Korea will not launch a pre-emptive strike. Instead, it's far more likely the US may try a first-strike, particularly if Trump believes he has to do something "bold" to deflect attention.