Canada may have to consider hedging its future..

[nicky10013]

I never called the US nazis lol, I'm stretching what a favour America did for the world by helping to kill them off.

Weren't the Soviets down on man-power from the initial Axis attack on Russia? The Russian front fell apart after the Soviets took Romania as far as I know, and by then troops were already be redivereted to the West.

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.

[ToadBrother]

We're not dealing in "what if's" just truth.

Trying to imagine WW2 without the US is all what if's.

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.

The Nazis were doomed in December 1941. Churchill knew it, and actually admitted to be guiltily happy that the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor. But without US aid, the Soviets would have been driven across the Urals. I doubt Germany would have chased them further, but for practical purposes they wouldn't have had to. By mid-1944, two fronts had been opened in Europe, North Africa was lost, Italy was in utter disarray, the Germans had lost what control of the Mediterranean they had had, and had been deprived of the necessary oil to keep the war machine going. In less than a year they would be abandoning their transports for lack of fuel.

But it was a group effort. The Brits and the Soviets could not have done it alone. The British Isles might have remained free, but the Empire would have been lost (and ultimately was lost), and I challenge anyone to state just how long the Brits could have been free in the face of a continent under the Nazis and their puppets. The Soviets, forced across the Urals, would have lost the larger part of their population, and it's difficult to imagine how they would have ever been able to rebuild their empire. The Chinese, with no pressure relief from the War in the Pacific, would likely have ultimately folded, maybe the Communists could have maintained some control far from the Japanese centres, but again, like the Soviets and the Brits, for how long could they hold out?

It doesn't matter anyway this thread is about China.

That's why I brought them back up.

[nicky10013]

I like this observation because it's so true that Americans are judged for how much they buy, but as you point out, other countries wouldn't have the revenue they do if we didn't buy; and since Canada is our biggest trade partner, it would affect Canada the most-- and I'm guessing Canadians as a whole wouldn't be happy if we were to suddenly, drastically curb our spending.

It's (yet) another case of 'damned it we do, damned if we don't.'

It's interesting reading through this thread, though, because I swear some would be happy if China were to replace the U.S. as the lone superpower just because they would love to see us fall; they can't see past that. It's a case of "be careful what you wish for ...." IMO.

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.

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

Japan and France are carrying far more debt as a percentage of GDP than America, but it's always the Americans who get the attention. "Other countries" like Canada do not have the capacity to weather any such storm or debt load...Canada flips out over deficits that are miniscule in comparison. America gets a much higher credit limit by design. The Chinese know this and have to protect their investment in American paper.

Canada should have diversified long ago, but it's far easier to spit on the American economy while being so very dependent on it.

[nicky10013]

Trying to imagine WW2 without the US is all what if's.

The Nazis were doomed in December 1941. Churchill knew it, and actually admitted to be guiltily happy that the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor. But without US aid, the Soviets would have been driven across the Urals. I doubt Germany would have chased them further, but for practical purposes they wouldn't have had to. By mid-1944, two fronts had been opened in Europe, North Africa was lost, Italy was in utter disarray, the Germans had lost what control of the Mediterranean they had had, and had been deprived of the necessary oil to keep the war machine going. In less than a year they would be abandoning their transports for lack of fuel.

But it was a group effort. The Brits and the Soviets could not have done it alone. The British Isles might have remained free, but the Empire would have been lost (and ultimately was lost), and I challenge anyone to state just how long the Brits could have been free in the face of a continent under the Nazis and their puppets. The Soviets, forced across the Urals, would have lost the larger part of their population, and it's difficult to imagine how they would have ever been able to rebuild their empire. The Chinese, with no pressure relief from the War in the Pacific, would likely have ultimately folded, maybe the Communists could have maintained some control far from the Japanese centres, but again, like the Soviets and the Brits, for how long could they hold out?

That's why I brought them back up.

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

[nicky10013]

Japan and France are carrying far more debt as a percentage of GDP than America, but it's always the Americans who get the attention. "Other countries" like Canada do not have the capacity to weather any such storm or debt load...Canada flips out over deficits that are miniscule in comparison. America gets a much higher credit limit by design. The Chinese know this and have to protect their investment in American paper.

Canada should have diversified long ago, but it's far easier to spit on the American economy while being so very dependent on it.

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

[ToadBrother]

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

Since the "what if" is based on bjre's claim that the US is evil and nasty and the world would be at peace if it didn't exist, some of us thought it might be important to point out how the US basically saved the world. Lend Lease was a damned important, if not the single most important part of that. The minute the US gave up effective neutrality and started sending equipment and arms to the British and the Soviets, the Nazis were screwed. But direct US military involvement also ultimately meant that the North Africa and Italian campaigns cut off the Nazis from key resources, as well as forcing the Germans to keep a substantial number of divisions and aircraft in Western Europe, as well as trying to prop up the Italians, meaning there was substantially less resistance to the Soviet advance.

Without US involvement, Eurasia and North Africa would have been very different places.

[Guest American Woman]

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.

Perhaps if you saved a little bit more money, you wouldn't get hurt so much when the U.S. bubble pops.

To say you "care" when the U.S. buys too much sounds rather insincere when you are the one doing the lion's share of the selling. But here's the thing; we're not going to "save a little bit more" just so you don't "hurt a lot more" when our bubble pops. We don't live our lives for you any more than you live yours for us, and you would think we were crazy if we expected you to, would you not?

[eyeball]

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.

I'm pretty certain Chinese authoritarianism will rebound once their natural capital is drawn down to a certain level. It will probably reappear here when our own goes south.

[nicky10013]

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.

[nicky10013]

I'm pretty certain Chinese authoritarianism will rebound once their natural capital is drawn down to a certain level. It will probably reappear here when our own goes south.

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

[bush_cheney2004]

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!

Nonsense...what do you think Americans use to build their homes, wipe their asses, or make shipping cartons? Canada's "car market" includes access to the USA. Toyota, GM, and Ford are not Canadian corporations.

[eyeball]

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

So you figure we'll all just get along democratically in a world of impoverished ecosystems? I think it will be dog eat dog and might makes right myself.

Edited December 20, 2009 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

...It's interesting reading through this thread, though, because I swear some would be happy if China were to replace the U.S. as the lone superpower just because they would love to see us fall; they can't see past that. It's a case of "be careful what you wish for ...." IMO.

Oh sure, no doubt there is a lot of that here. Some (not all) just salivate at the thought of America failing, cutting off their own noses to spite their faces. That's why I like to point out that Canadians technically live in a "fallen (British) empire", and it's not so bad after all. Better to have been a superpower and failed than to never have been one at all.

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

The war was won? No it wasn't....America was going into hock in a big way and had another "war" in the Pacific that Canada largely ignored.

[nicky10013]

Perhaps if you saved a little bit more money, you wouldn't get hurt so much when the U.S. bubble pops.

To say you "care" when the U.S. buys too much sounds rather insincere when you are the one doing the lion's share of the selling. But here's the thing; we're not going to "save a little bit more" just so you don't "hurt a lot more" when our bubble pops. We don't live our lives for you any more than you live yours for us, and you would think we were crazy if we expected you to, would you not?

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.

[bush_cheney2004]

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

That's your fault...not mine. Nothing in Canada has such an influence on my income....now why is that?

[nicky10013]

That's your fault...not mine. Nothing in Canada has such an influence on my income....now why is that?

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.

Edited December 21, 2009 by nicky10013

[Guest American Woman]

We do and we didn't. No matter how much we save, however, we're always going to be hurting when you do.

That's a fact of life. Another fact of life is you profit when we profit, and I've never heard any complaints about that.

So if you want to hurt less when we hurt, don't spend that profit; act as if we are saving more, don't spend that excess money you have because of our excess spending, and you should be just fine. That was my point.

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.

I think it's ridiculous to have anything but an individualist attitude when spending on one's personal life. I doubt if you think of my well-being when deciding whether to buy a 52 inch flat screen tv or save the money. I doubt if you wonder what kind of impact your spending will have on anyone other than yourself and your family, and that's the way it should be in that regard.

But here's the thing. Americans do spend money, and they spend it throughout the world, helping those nations' economies. I've never once had anyone from a country I was visiting urge me to spend less while there, or urge me to go home and tell Americans not to travel there, but to save their money instead.

Bottom line: if America's bubble bursting hurts you, that's the price you pay for profiting off of our spending. And that's a choice Canada makes; Canada made the choice to be our biggest trading partner, and you did that not for our benefit, but for yours.

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

So what....that doesn't excuse your personal responsibility and dependence on a foreign economy to keep your job. You are not responsible for Canada's economy, but you are responsible for yourself.

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.

Nonsense....the US didn't start your empire's world wars, but it sure as hell finished them.

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.

Any fool who believes that deserves to be the sucker that they are. That "beacon of light" crap was never true, but is a fine excuse for Canada and others not figuring it out for themselves.

[Guest American Woman]

Oh sure, no doubt there is a lot of that here. Some (not all) just salivate at the thought of America failing, cutting off their own noses to spite their faces. That's why I like to point out that Canadians technically live in a "fallen (British) empire", and it's not so bad after all. Better to have been a superpower and failed than to never have been one at all.

That's why I like to point out that Canadians technically live in a "fallen (British) empire", and it's not so bad after all.

Exactly. Their lives aren't miserable, unless they make it that way dwelling on us. My life will continue as is if we are no longer a Super Power, just as Brits' lives go on just fine even though they are a "fallen empire;" and just as Canadians lives are just fine never having been a Super Power or Empire themselves.

[bush_cheney2004]

....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.

How do you know what the "world" wants? Better follow the money trail, because ideals don't mean crap compared to what really counts, including a job in Canada by your own account above.

Edited December 21, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[ToadBrother]

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.

All things considered, the large majority of the rest of the international community aren't exactly saints. I doubt any of them would behave substantially different than the US does, at best. The US makes mistakes, and because they are big rich country, they make big expensive mistakes. What often happens is that the US is a convenient scapegoat for some countries' domestic problems. It's most pronounced in parts of the Muslim world, where leaders will use the Great Satan argument to try to incense their citizens at the wrong target; getting them all angry at the US and its alliance with Israel, when they're evils and incompetence are the true cause of misery. As to the European countries, I can't think of many that have sufficient moral superiority to lecture the US, certainly not Germany or France. Reporters get killed on the streets of Moscow, Great Britain is increasingly living under a Big Brother-like surveillance society.

We all have our flaws, and yet rather than deal with them, we go pounding on the US's doors, moaning about how domineering and unfair they are. The history of the US over the last 90 years has been this; if they're too involved in world affairs, everybody accuses them of being imperialistic. If they withdraw, then everyone accuses them of being isolationist. What everyone wants is for the US to behave precisely how they want it to behave. It has nothing to do with ideals and everything to do with everyone trying to look out for their own self interest, underwritten, please, by Uncle Sam.

[bush_cheney2004]

The US makes mistakes, and because they are big rich country, they make big expensive mistakes. What often happens is that the US is a convenient scapegoat for some countries' domestic problems. It's most pronounced in parts of the Muslim world,....

Hell, it's pretty common in Canada too!

We all have our flaws, and yet rather than deal with them, we go pounding on the US's doors, moaning about how domineering and unfair they are. The history of the US over the last 90 years has been this; if they're too involved in world affairs, everybody accuses them of being imperialistic. If they withdraw, then everyone accuses them of being isolationist. What everyone wants is for the US to behave precisely how they want it to behave. It has nothing to do with ideals and everything to do with everyone trying to look out for their own self interest, underwritten, please, by Uncle Sam.

Agreed...so in the end, the USA will do exactly as it pleases for self interest.

But it's all right now. I learned my lesson well.

You see, you can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself

.

- Ricky Nelson

[Guest American Woman]

All things considered, the large majority of the rest of the international community aren't exactly saints. I doubt any of them would behave substantially different than the US does, at best. The US makes mistakes, and because they are big rich country, they make big expensive mistakes. What often happens is that the US is a convenient scapegoat for some countries' domestic problems. It's most pronounced in parts of the Muslim world, where leaders will use the Great Satan argument to try to incense their citizens at the wrong target; getting them all angry at the US and its alliance with Israel, when they're evils and incompetence are the true cause of misery. As to the European countries, I can't think of many that have sufficient moral superiority to lecture the US, certainly not Germany or France. Reporters get killed on the streets of Moscow, Great Britain is increasingly living under a Big Brother-like surveillance society.

We all have our flaws, and yet rather than deal with them, we go pounding on the US's doors, moaning about how domineering and unfair they are. The history of the US over the last 90 years has been this; if they're too involved in world affairs, everybody accuses them of being imperialistic. If they withdraw, then everyone accuses them of being isolationist. What everyone wants is for the US to behave precisely how they want it to behave. It has nothing to do with ideals and everything to do with everyone trying to look out for their own self interest, underwritten, please, by Uncle Sam.

Thank you. It's nice to be reminded that there are people out there who see the situation for what it is, especially as it seems increasingly rare to find that in regards to the U.S. It's very frustrating to be constantly judged and criticized by people whose nations are no more moral than the U.S., whose nations have a history of imperialism, or wish they had our/more power, judging and berating us with their 'holier than thou' attitude.