Welcome to Gaia! ::

The American jobs are lost because of the inherent flaws of capitalism.

There will always be a tension between the interests of the worker and that of the capitalist. The worker always seeks higher wages and improved conditions, whereas the capitalist wants the most labor at the lowest cost so as to produce the maximum profit. Capitalism functions because there's a sort of balance between the two.

However, in cases like the US economy, that balance is no longer there, because US laws are such that workers' rights are to a certain degree protected, when international laws are not. Therefore it's significantly more profitable for large businesses to move their factories overseas, where the workers don't have the power to stand up for themselves, and so they won't have to pay as much money. Workers in the US get screwed, because they can no longer find jobs, and workers in other countries get exploited and have poor working conditions. The only people winning in this case are the capitalists.

This leaves open the question as to why US workers don't take to the streets and further stand up for their jobs and rights.

This is where excess consumerism comes in... we've created for ourselves a culture in which a significant amount of people live a relatively comfortable life.

but it really is a new thing that the idea is actually more valuable than the physical good[...]

Ok... Canada? what would Canada be able to contribute to a defence against an invasion of north america? If the situation is such that the US is caught on the back foot, then nothng Canada can mobilize would be useful, as it would also be caught by suprise.

Brittain: The days of Brittania ruling the waves are gone, the situation there is much the same as with Canada, though because of its distance, it would be able to coordinate and reinforcements it supplies, so later on it may help a bit.

Poland: Poland is in the middle of central europe. Not only is it in such an out-of-the-way possition, but its economy, dispite all the cheering wall street has made over the past decade, is in no condition to wage a major war.*

France: the french economy is such that it may be able to help, though with the political situation in europe, it would most likely see this as a chance to break free of the US completely, and challenge Germany for easter europe.

Australia: Have you been here? it is a country near enough in size to the US, though it has a population of only 21-odd million. Not only that, but while the country is reputed to have the best standard infantry on the planet, such an armed force is only about 5000 strong I think. Not very useful. For all the 'friendship' between these two countries (and I wonder how this 'friendship will change after the next ellections, both here and in the US) the actuall commitment of the Australian military is small (there have been 3 deaths in Afghanistan... one of them was either friendly-fire, suicide or an idiot playing with his gun without the safety on... they do not know which).

Ireland? I know almost nothing about Ireland, so I will not comment there.

Iceland... Come on, Iceland? I have no idea about the country or its people, but the worth of such an ally seems more political than military.

Germany: Germany and France are currently in competition for the EU, that is, who gets eastern europe as its private domain. In any situation I think this will be the main factor. If France is not in a position to use its nuclear weaopnry, Germany would most likely side with the Non-French side. France would lose. **

Now, the main question: would the US be able to take an invasion?

The economy of the US is going down. Increasing foreign debt while decreasing the domestic manufacturing sector is something that would play . the US if it were attacked. (who would attack? I have no idea, and that question is not important for this part of the post) The US, while still the only superpower in military strength, is declining economicaly. Unless US capitalism is able to rectify this, it is actually only a matter of time untill someone comes along with the ability to breat it. ***


Who would attack?
China? most people would say this, just as most people would say that the SU would have been the one to attack first if the cold war were to have turned hot. But both are wrong. The SU didn't attack and the PRC won't attack for one reason: Socialism in one country. This stalinist dogma seeks 'peaceful co-existence' with western capitalism in order to create the socialist paradise. What this means in practice is that either capitalism will be restored in mainland China as in the SU, or the PRC is to turn in on itself, deny western capitalism and its technological advancements and resources and go the road of Cuba: ecologically sustainable, but hella poor. However, that much is irrelevant, what is important is that the CCP needs a stable capitalist world if it is to catch up technologically to the west and be able to justify its existence to the chinese people. It is no threat in the offence. Defensively? well, that is not part of the question, so I shall leave that be for now.

Russia? Russia's economy is slowly becoming to be something that could be called 'in existence'. Russian capitalism almost completely destroyed the industry built up under the SU. The military capablities of Russia are similar to the US in that they are disproportionate to the economic base. However, though russia actually has a decent military, it is not one that could stand up to the US. At the most it would be able to make a decent attempt at eastern europe or the former soviet republics south of it.****

Europe? no country in europe would have a chance against the US as things currently stand, though a Franco-German unified state would be able to at least pretend. Though there is no question of a peaceful unification as the two are historically enemies, if there were a war in which Germany won rather quickly, such a case might arise, though if it were France that won it would be through the use of nukes, so that would end any hopes of having a decent economy.*****

Japan? Hah! Japan is in the same situation it was in the '30s, though this time it has no colonial holdings. The situation I mean is this: per unit of population, per unit of territory, it has a bigger economy. The thing is that while its economy may be proportionately larger than the US economy, the US economy is absolutely bigger. That and the JSDF are teh suck. High tech, but suck. ^

Right now, the US is in no danger of being attacked by a compotent enemy, its only danger is of being bled white in one foreign theatre after another.
----------
*: This is based on the assumption that the US is not attacked by Russia through Alaska... Which would be stupid for Russia to do. The reasons for that are given briefly in my entry on that country. If that were the case however, Poland would be useful as a staging ground for troops and materiel. his is, of course, assuming that Russia has not nuked the ******** out of north america. Such an act would be necessary for victory against the US, but would most likely bring on nuclear attack by others, notably France and Britain. In other words, it would only be useful if Russia were doubly stupid.

**: Read 'lose' as 'get utterly pwned.' That said, things might be changiing. The comming depression seems to be hitting Germany harder than France. Not that it really matters. The comming depression is likely to ******** every advanced country up in a similar way, so it will more likely be a situation where everyone is too ******** to fight, despite any military-technical-economic superiority.
Well, unless they decide a war is the best way out of the depression (a good fight will fix any depression, students of economics, history and politics agree for once! yeah, bad pun, but hey.)

***: I am absolutely lost on the state of the US internationally and militarily. All my figures were outdated at the time I wrote this, but now, with both a year, and a third Great Depression on the way, I am absolutely lost. I really have to read up on the state of the various international militaries and certain economies soon...

****: This was wrong.^^ Russia's economy was not merely 'coming into existence,' but did exist, though with the Georgia thing and the immediate impact of the wall street crash in september, things are looking pretty grim.

*****: Not quiet. A lot of people would go to look at the soil glow prettily at night. Nucleo-tourism bucks! razz

^: Japan does have at least one neo-colony. I am not sure if it is Thailand or Maylasia, but in either case, they do... Not quiet what mexico is to the US, or Turkey and the petty east european states are to France and Germany, but hey.
Also, the JSDF is not actually that high tech. AFAIK, most intensive developement, but with the constitution, and the US looking over their shoulder wanting a piece of the action, not much IIRC, is actually implemented.

^^: I have a habit of equating industrial capacity to economic strength, and while that is the best way to assess the capability of a country to sustain a long, intensive war, it is not the same thing. With the deindustrialisation of the west, the imperialist centres are actually what one could call 'post-industrial.' Living off the fruits of super-exploitation of labour in the semi-colonial world. This provides a vibrant, but extremely unstable economy. With such small amounts of capital (industrial, not investment) available directly, most of the imperialist world can no longer maintain itself for long in the face of a depression. This poses the question of which road the neo-colonies will take: national-liberation>Local (semi? imperialist) power, or national-liberation>workers power. Not something that can be called beforehand.

As far as a threat from a Chinese invasion it would be rather stupid according to the military doctrines of Sun Tzu, who of course was Chinese. "To win without fighting is best." This little bit from Sun Tzu sums it up entirely, China is a 4,000 year old civilization while the US has barely gotten over 200 years. From the opposite side all one has to do is have patience and let the opposition (in this case the US) collapse from within. Certainly consumer debt and even more staggeringly national debts will plague the US for decades if not centuries to come. While there may be currently no military rival of equal conventional power to the US, unconventional guerrilla warfare in many fronts will drain the conventional forces and destabilize the populace. All of this geopolitically is best left untouched by invasion but, rather to allow the country to implode under the weight of its' own problems. So, we can definately say that the U.S. will not be invaded and we can get over the paranoia of that while our internal problems will either have to be solved or the implosion viz. revolution by ballot or bullet will correct the existing problems or amplify them depending on who gains power through such means. If the workers gain power then Socialism will fix the internal mess of under/unemployment, health insurance, gargantuan military budgets, ect. While if we experience a Fascist take over then the problems will be exacerbated especially with military budgets leading to debt levels previously unimaginable. All in all when the USSR called the US decadent it was not an epithet but, rather a statement of the facts. ninja