nicky10013

It's nobodies fault. Well, that's not true, it is the US's fault if we're really going to go there. The main reason anyone could come up with is that Canada is a small economy next to a gigantic one. Canada's economy isn't even all that small, it's tiny in comparison to yours. Nobody is denying that. If it was the other way around, you'd be in the same situation as me. That doesn't mean that the US shouldn't be any less responsible for their inherited leadership position in the world. The US is responsible for the entire post-war world. The US pushed Bretton Woods and the WTO, the elimination of tariffs and to the US's credit it has worked really well. The integrated world economy is one of the best things to happen and the US should rightly take credit for it. Now, as the US, the centre of world finance, stumbles and we demand a little more responsibility from the lunatics that run the asylum, we're told, "what did you expect?" If the US wants to be the beacon of light unto the world like so many citizens and officials preach, then the US should act like it. Does it mean that we hate the US and want you to fall? No, we want the US to live up to its ideals more than it has recently. The world doesn't want a community with no United States, it just wants a United States that holds itself to the same standard that it holds to other nations.

We do and we didn't. No matter how much we save, however, we're always going to be hurting when you do. Furthermore, the individualist attitude and complete lack of regard for other states in this ridculously globalized system is a problem. As seen in Europe, the economy is going more towards cooperation rather than competition. It's a sign that we SHOULD be working closer together and looking out for eachother because if one fails in this system, the shockwaves ripple across the entire economy and as we saw this past year, it can be very good AND very bad.

The first could happen. There's always tremendous instability during changes in institutions. The second is a ridiculous notion.

And? I never disputed that. Just because what's his face was calling the US evil doesn't mean I was. What I'm saying is we need to call a spade a spade and say that by the time the US, Canadians and British landed the war was won. That's allllll I'm saying.

You're preaching to the converted, but until we diversify (I don't really have a say in that) I have to worry about you idiots screwing yourselves over because it could cost me my job ahahaha

Since when have I not mentioned Lend Lease. The rest of your argument surmises that I have no idea what it was.

We care if the US buys too much because when the US buys too much, we get bubbles. When they pop, everyone get's hurt a lot more than if the US saved a little bit more money.

The Soviet advance was pretty steady after 43. Yes it was horrible after the first attack on Russia. They lost 3,000,000 men in like a week. Thank god they had 150,000,000 people. 27,000,000 died.

Also about the US buying Canadian goods, yeah that definitely is true, but most Americans don't buy crude, steel or wood in bulk. The car market is already screwed so that's that!

I don't disagree with anything you said, I'm just listing the scenario that would happen if the US intentionally defaulted on Chinese debt. It won't happen but it would be calamitous because right now the US just wouldn't be able to deal with the fallout like a LOT of other countries. It just simply isn't as easy as saying, nope, we ain't paying. That's my point. It's capitalism, the US economy can and probably will turn around. There just needs to be an emphasis on raising savings rates (not by much but definitely needs to go up) not just at the federal level but the personal level.

It's because Stalin was delusional. He was also getting daily intelligence reports notifying him of the 3 million men on his border but did nothing because he believed in the pact of '39. Also because he was busy in '37 "dealing" with his general staff.

We're not dealing in "what if's" just truth. The fact is by the time we got there, the deal was done. Lend Lease had a great deal to do with it, but the Russians had already turned it around and were halfway through Poland (after being on the doorstep of Moscow in 1943). That's not just moving the trench ahead by a mile or so. That's serious territory. By mid 1944 EVERYONE knew the Nazis were done, it was just a question of how long and how many more dead. It doesn't matter anyway this thread is about China.

I was referring to WW1 and I specifically referred to Lend Lease in another post. There's a good saying. I can't remember all of it but the jist of it is the US did the building, the Russians did the dying.

China doesn't become better because we tell them how to be democratic. They've got to do it themselves and they won't do it until they're sufficiently well off. It's easy for us to say how horrible the Chinese must be that they've built their democracy on the backs of people deprived of human rights but conditions were certainly similar in Europe and North America to what is in China at the moment. The best we can do is sit back and trade with them. Bit by bit things get better and more and more will the Chinese take their country's fate into their own hands. There's been a lot said about Tibet but 20 years ago who would've thought that there would have been enough funding and internal organization to stage the kind of protest we've seen? It's the sign of significant economic progress. The more they make the better off they are. It's certainly a paradox but one we know works. Once the GDP reaches a certain level per capita, authoritarianism disappears.

What's that supposed to mean? I never said that the US never supplied arms and munitions, I'm just saying that it didn't happen like most think it did. Wilson couldn't send large amounts of arms because things like the Mauritania happened. Yes it was a horrible tragedy but it was carrying munitions to Europe. 25% of all bullets, shells and bombs used in WW1 were manufactured in Canada.

It didn't really ramp up until they officially entered the war. Canada was actually one of the largest suppliers of the entire war, US included.

Chimerica - Niall Ferguson. The equation works out until China doesn't have to rely on being an export economy. Sooner or later enough Chinese are going to be able to buy the flimsy consumer products they're so adept at producing. At that point, China no longer needs to rely so heavily on the US. The US is a HUGE market but it isn't the be all and end all of economics. China itself, the EU, Africa which they're taking advantage of more than any other country and the emerging and possibly incredibly powerful Asian bloc which is trying to emmulate the European Union through the creation of a common market. Yes, Canada needs to keep trading because that's what keeps us prosperous and frankly international trade builds democracy and stops war. The US seems to be one of the only countries taking the situation for granted and seem to be not thinking strategically. Everyone believes that since the two seem so intertwined that war is impossible but that's what they were saying in 1900 of the British and the Germans.

The stalemate was already broken and the Allies were advancing at a rapid pace by the time US troops were able to fight in France.

Nobody is calling the US Nazis and the war was already won by the time the Allies landed as the Soviets were already in Poland and advancing. The Lend Lease Act is another story, but the Russians had already won the war by the time we got to France. Britain would've never been invaded because the Luftwaffe could never gain air superiority.

What would happen if the US defaulted on it's debt? The world wouldn't just automatically say, oh well it's just the Chinese, it's all good. The world economy would go into a tail spin. The US dollar would crash due to the utter lack of credibility of the institution and the US would no longer be able to sell bonds. Who wants to buy debt from a guy who spits into your face? Any resultant war would be automatically won by the Chinese because the US wouldn't be able to raise the capital needed to send the troops overseas. As for war bonds bought by regular citizens, how can Americans afford it with so many owning mortgages worth more than their houses, credit card debt etc. etc. etc. It's not a pretty picture. US consumer madness has put the US in such a compromising position. Not much can be done when you have a savings rate of almost -10% and a country with a federal government running a current account deficit which is projected to go as high as 25% of GDP.

For those interested on the China/India topic I recommend reading Fareed Zakaria's The Post American World. Zakaria says that it's not necessarily about the decline of the west but the rise of the rest. He interestingly calls it a multi-unipolar world. The US at the top but China, India and to a certain extent Europe nipping at it's heels. He argues that the dynamism of the US economy will keep the competitors at bay, yet on one of his recent episodes of GPS on CNN he noted that the global competitive ranking of the US was around 41st or 42nd (I actually noticed Canada ahead by 2 spots which kind of puzzled me) so he questioned whether or not this was totally true anymore. What we know right now is that China's GDP is growing between 8-12% per annum. 8 is what they shoot for but unofficially the Chinese government despises being below 12. China is completely outstripping Indian growth. The reason is that India as a democracy doesn't have the same power to physically move people around to promote economic growth as China does. The problem with such exponential growth in the Chinese economy isn't necessarily the pollution or the international community but surprisingly democratisation. Growing economies means bread winners can comfortably feed families. The easier that becomes, the more the Chinese can focus on their political situation. There are now 70,000 anti-government protesters each year combined with free elections in villages certainly signals China's move towards more open forms of governance. The problem is the instability in instituting democratic changes can significantly hamper or reverse the economic growth with which China is so familiar. Time will tell.

This post is hilarious from top to bottom because it's entirely based on Harper being honest. The fact is he's been lying since the day he decided he wanted to be a serious candidate for Prime Minister. Go back into his history and you'll see how truly right wing this man is yet he constantly trying to position himself as a centrist Liberal. Yes he has an ungodly amount of power over his caucus because his caucus is just as reactionary as he is only with less discipline and no one wants to see what they're hiding. So, at the very core of what we think Stephen Harper is, is completely dishonest. We haven't seen who he truly is since the day the writ dropped in the election he won. Not to mention the fact that he sent party aides to bribe a dying man with a million dollars to bring down the government. You may come up with all these horrible stories of the Liberals but no cabinet member was charged with anything. They've got Harper on tape admitting he knew about it, vetted as genuine by Harper's personal FBI buddy (according to AM640). Yet, Harper's lawyers have had it tied up in the courts because god forbid it gets out. Bribing a parliamentarian is illegal and he could go to jail! And, as we've seen it's not like the caucus goes against his will so it's not like some rogue aide who happens to have a million dollars in his pocket could go and offer a bribe to an independent MP. Anybody who believes this government is any better than the Liberals (after 4 years no less) is frankly a tad delusional. What's more is that it seems like a good whack of Conservatives (not here but all over the place) know it. The common defence for the Conservative party these days is, "well the Liberals did it first!!!!!" As if that makes what the Conservatives have done any better. This is what our politics has been reduced to in just 4 years.

It's the party taking government money for partisan gain. They're using it to figure out where they are in comparison to the Liberals. On top of that, the money flowed through Conservative friendly ad agencies. Sounds awful familiar doesn't it? So does the buck stop at personal responsibility or should we hold the party responsible, too? I think it should be both, sounds like you only believe it should be the former.

The chief of the defence staff admitted to it. They have notebooks from soldiers acknowledging that they knew prisoners they handed over were beaten severly. That's why this whole thing is a story. It was a semi-big story until Natynczyk (sp?) admitted to it, then it exploded it because he proved Mckay was lying through his teeth. You obfuscate just as well as the government. And yes, the entire forum knows it.

The PMO has also spent $40 million on partisan polling out of government, not party coffers. Speaking of lack of transparency, this is a pretty good read. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/democracy-canadian-style-how-do-you-like-it-so-far/article1403148/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:%20TheGlobeAndMail-HYPolitics%20(The%20Globe%20and%20Mail%20-%20Politics%20News