Slashdot Mirror

In what strange universe is it impossible to be a democracy and a republic? What feature of the US constitution makes it not a democracy?

No monarchy makes republic a slightly better fit.

The definitions for both republic and democracy tend to include:
- Supreme power resides in the people entitled to vote.
- Power exercised by elected representatives chosen directly or indirectly.
However the definitions for republic tend to add:
- A head of state that is not a monarch.

FWIW, the governments description of itself:
Government type:
Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Accuracy? The United States is neither. It's a Federation. Why the hell do you think it's called "The Federal Government"?

Merely to distinguish it from state and local government.

According to the federal government itself, the proper description is:

Government type:
Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Technically they're right. We are not a democracy, we are a republic. Their reasons for doing this may be wrong, but I agree with the overall outcome.

I know that they brainwashed you in school to believe that, but I would rather believe the New Oxford American Dictionary ... Merriam-Webster dictionary ... dictionary.reference.com ...

You should have looked up both "democracy" and "republic". You would have found that they both share the characteristics you emphasize:
- Supreme power resides in the people entitled to vote.
- Power exercised by elected representatives chosen directly or indirectly.
However the definitions for republic also includes:
- A head of state that is not a monarch. In contrast your sources specifically permit a monarchy in a democracy.

So "republic" is a better fit for the Unites States.

Furthermore your Merriam-Webster source includes:
Examples of REPUBLIC
when asked by a passerby what sort of government the constitutional convention had formulated for the new nation, Benjamin Franklin memorably replied, “A republic, if you can keep it”

and your dictionary.com source includes:
Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed. Democracy implied direct rule by the people, all of whom were equal, whereas republic implied a system of government in which the will of the people was mediated by representatives, who might be wiser and better educated than the average person. In the early American republic, for example, the requirement that voters own property and the establishment of institutions such as the Electoral College were intended to cushion the government from the direct expression of the popular will.

Which is why founding fathers described their creation as a republic back in the day. For a more modern perspective lets see how the US government describes itself today:

Country name:
conventional long form: United States of America
conventional short form: United States
abbreviation: US or USA
Government type:
Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

We will probably have to go back to more traditional forms of fact gathering.

CIA Factbook on Egypt (publicly available): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/eg.html

...and note that the debt to GDP ratio of the PIIGS are *better* that of the USA. Compared to the PIIGS, the USA is a mismanaged banana republic.

This seemed fishy to me when I first saw it, and it turns out that this is way off. According to the 2010 stats of the CIA World Factbook, the US has the 36th highest (public) debt to GDP ratio at 58.90%. Here are the countries of PIIGS compared to the US:

• Portugal, 15th, 83.20%
• Italy, 8th 118.10%
• Ireland, 11th 98.50%
• Greece, 5th 144.00%
• Spain, 27th 63.40%

And, because it was referenced earlier,

• Iceland, 6th, 123.80%

So, rather than being worse than the PIIGS countries, the US has a lower public debt to GDP ratio than any of them, and, with the exception of Spain, is vastly lower. Also, note that the US's debt to GDP is lower than that of the UK (76.50%), France (83.50%), or Germany (74.80%). Now, that's not to say that this level of public debt is good, or that it shouldn't be lowered (it isn't and it should), but in terms of debt to GDP, the US is better off than most of the large European economies.

Aluminum, their abundant geo-thermal energy make Iceland a top producer of Aluminum

... Abundant geothermal and hydropower sources have attracted substantial foreign investment in the aluminum sector and boosted economic growth, although the financial crisis has put several investment projects on hold. Much of Iceland's economic growth in recent years came as the result of a boom in domestic demand following the rapid expansion of the country's financial sector. Iceland

In fact it's probably easier to work around no Oil than No Aluminum.

Yes you might be right on many levels. I get quite frustrated at my job, but I really do give good customer service, even those people. Assuming they do not see the micro expressions come across my face before I gain composure and put on that fake smile.

On some levels I think some of my point stands. I worked in the higher end web/tech industry for 15 years I did not have to deal with very many every day people. I would bet 'some' people that read this site also do not deal with the "general public" all that much. I mean I knew on paper "14% of people in my county lacked basic prose literacy skills"[1], which is about 1 in every 7, but without dealing with this in person, it was just some number on paper. "25% of people in the USA's IQ are below 90"[2], while not a perfect measure of intelligence, still says something. Beyond that people in the USA seem to lack in logic related skills (math), compared to the rest of the first even second world. We are the stupidest nation dollar for dollar[3] there is. I just find it sad and frustrating. I doubt you can solve people using bad passwords without addressing some of those facts first.

But as you started I am talking about the left of the tail not the middle and you are very right on that end.

1. http://nces.ed.gov/naal/estimates/StateEstimates.aspx
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
3. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/rankorderguide.html

That doesn't really alter my original point at all. For example, in the rankings of GDP purchasing power parity, the EU ranks ahead overall, but the U.S. ranks way ahead of the EU in terms per capita GDP PPP, at #11 and #42, respectively.

The 10 countries ahead of the U.S. in per capita GDP PPP don't really count because these are all tiny countries with small populations that support big industries that are propped up mostly by the US and the EU. For example, Luxembourg benefits much from its proximity to France, Belgium and Germany, with whom it does most of its trade.

No, but we're #2 in GDP purchasing power parity (just barely behind the EU), #4 in stock of money (behind the EU, Japan and China, respectively), #4 in the size of labor force, #4 in terms of exports.

And we're still #1 by a big margin in terms of airports, roadways, and railways. Only China beats us for the number of phone lines, and only China and India beat us in terms of total number of cellphones. Nobody even comes close in terms of the number of Internet hosts. So I'm not sure what you mean by we're "not #1 in terms of infrastructure," but I'm pretty sure you're dead flat wrong there.

So, yes, in some ways the U.S. does hold the world together, or at least help to do so economically and militarily, and no, military is not the only the thing the U.S. is #1, not by a long shot.

No, but we're #2 in GDP purchasing power parity (just barely behind the EU), #4 in stock of money (behind the EU, Japan and China, respectively), #4 in the size of labor force, #4 in terms of exports.

And we're still #1 by a big margin in terms of airports, roadways, and railways. Only China beats us for the number of phone lines, and only China and India beat us in terms of total number of cellphones. Nobody even comes close in terms of the number of Internet hosts. So I'm not sure what you mean by we're "not #1 in terms of infrastructure," but I'm pretty sure you're dead flat wrong there.

So, yes, in some ways the U.S. does hold the world together, or at least help to do so economically and militarily, and no, military is not the only the thing the U.S. is #1, not by a long shot.

No, but we're #2 in GDP purchasing power parity (just barely behind the EU), #4 in stock of money (behind the EU, Japan and China, respectively), #4 in the size of labor force, #4 in terms of exports.

And we're still #1 by a big margin in terms of airports, roadways, and railways. Only China beats us for the number of phone lines, and only China and India beat us in terms of total number of cellphones. Nobody even comes close in terms of the number of Internet hosts. So I'm not sure what you mean by we're "not #1 in terms of infrastructure," but I'm pretty sure you're dead flat wrong there.

So, yes, in some ways the U.S. does hold the world together, or at least help to do so economically and militarily, and no, military is not the only the thing the U.S. is #1, not by a long shot.

No, but we're #2 in GDP purchasing power parity (just barely behind the EU), #4 in stock of money (behind the EU, Japan and China, respectively), #4 in the size of labor force, #4 in terms of exports.

And we're still #1 by a big margin in terms of airports, roadways, and railways. Only China beats us for the number of phone lines, and only China and India beat us in terms of total number of cellphones. Nobody even comes close in terms of the number of Internet hosts. So I'm not sure what you mean by we're "not #1 in terms of infrastructure," but I'm pretty sure you're dead flat wrong there.

So, yes, in some ways the U.S. does hold the world together, or at least help to do so economically and militarily, and no, military is not the only the thing the U.S. is #1, not by a long shot.

No, but we're #2 in GDP purchasing power parity (just barely behind the EU), #4 in stock of money (behind the EU, Japan and China, respectively), #4 in the size of labor force, #4 in terms of exports.

And we're still #1 by a big margin in terms of airports, roadways, and railways. Only China beats us for the number of phone lines, and only China and India beat us in terms of total number of cellphones. Nobody even comes close in terms of the number of Internet hosts. So I'm not sure what you mean by we're "not #1 in terms of infrastructure," but I'm pretty sure you're dead flat wrong there.

So, yes, in some ways the U.S. does hold the world together, or at least help to do so economically and militarily, and no, military is not the only the thing the U.S. is #1, not by a long shot.

No, but we're #2 in GDP purchasing power parity (just barely behind the EU), #4 in stock of money (behind the EU, Japan and China, respectively), #4 in the size of labor force, #4 in terms of exports.

And we're still #1 by a big margin in terms of airports, roadways, and railways. Only China beats us for the number of phone lines, and only China and India beat us in terms of total number of cellphones. Nobody even comes close in terms of the number of Internet hosts. So I'm not sure what you mean by we're "not #1 in terms of infrastructure," but I'm pretty sure you're dead flat wrong there.

So, yes, in some ways the U.S. does hold the world together, or at least help to do so economically and militarily, and no, military is not the only the thing the U.S. is #1, not by a long shot.

No, but we're #2 in GDP purchasing power parity (just barely behind the EU), #4 in stock of money (behind the EU, Japan and China, respectively), #4 in the size of labor force, #4 in terms of exports.

And we're still #1 by a big margin in terms of airports, roadways, and railways. Only China beats us for the number of phone lines, and only China and India beat us in terms of total number of cellphones. Nobody even comes close in terms of the number of Internet hosts. So I'm not sure what you mean by we're "not #1 in terms of infrastructure," but I'm pretty sure you're dead flat wrong there.

So, yes, in some ways the U.S. does hold the world together, or at least help to do so economically and militarily, and no, military is not the only the thing the U.S. is #1, not by a long shot.

No, but we're #2 in GDP purchasing power parity (just barely behind the EU), #4 in stock of money (behind the EU, Japan and China, respectively), #4 in the size of labor force, #4 in terms of exports.

And we're still #1 by a big margin in terms of airports, roadways, and railways. Only China beats us for the number of phone lines, and only China and India beat us in terms of total number of cellphones. Nobody even comes close in terms of the number of Internet hosts. So I'm not sure what you mean by we're "not #1 in terms of infrastructure," but I'm pretty sure you're dead flat wrong there.

So, yes, in some ways the U.S. does hold the world together, or at least help to do so economically and militarily, and no, military is not the only the thing the U.S. is #1, not by a long shot.

That maybe, just maybe, there are times when making something public is *worse* than keeping it secret.

For any American to believe that the US cares about democracy in Zimbabwe, all you need to do is read the CIA report, now declassified, about its first election:

http://www.foia.cia.gov/browse_docs.asp?doc_no=0000462682

The newly elected government in Rhodesia will press the US and the UK to recognize it and lift economic sanctions. It will argue that the election meets the demands of the US and UK for a transfer of power to a black government on the basis of one man, one vote. Recognizing the new government and lifting sanctions certainly would strengthen it. There would be greater white resolve to support the black-led government and a greater willingness among whites in themilitary to defend it. Government prospects for attracting large numbersof guerrilla defectors could also be enhanced if the economy improved sufficiently to allow the government to improve social services for the blacks.

The lifting of sanctions would improve the chances of stemming Rhodesia‘s economic decline and would provide substantial economic benefits and give a major psychological boost to the internal regime. Worldwide demand has been increasing for many goods produced by the Rhodesians such as copper, gold, and chrome.

At the same time, such a decision would seriously erode the "special relationship" the US has fostered with black African leaders -- particularly Zambian President Kaunda, Tanzanian President Nyerere, and Nigerian President Obasanjo. They would conclude that the US and the UK had chosen to support the "enemy" and thus would come under increasing pressure from the guerrillas and the Soviets to pursue a military solution in Rhodesia. Such a basic policy shift would also weaken the credibility of western support for the UN transitional program for Namibia in the eyes of both the Africans and the white government in Pretoria. In fact, the South Africans probably have already interpreted moves to send US observers to cover the Rhodesian elections as evidence of a general weakening of US determination to pursue the UN transition program for Namibia, giving them more room to push a final settlement on their own terms. While some African leaders might support lifting sanctions if it were followed by US and UK efforts to include ZANU or ZAPU in the new government, the frontline African leaders would be further antagonized by such a strategy. A call for a new constitution -- providing for a more rapid transition to full black rule and approved by both blacks and whites--might dispel some of the frontline president's resentment but it would still leave the US and the UK very much in disfavor.

Unsurprisingly, the principle of supporting a democracy doesn't seem to appear in their analysis. And maybe some part of the State Department - not the part that pays public lip service for PR purposes - did support democracy. Unless Assange is successful in helping to usher in a new era of government transparency, I will never know what my government did on my behalf with my money.

First link : Hong Kong

Ever since 1996 Hong Kong has been a part of China.

Second link : Average not median

The first link was median not average.

From the CIA: Population below poverty line: 2.8%

note: 21.5 million rural population live below the official "absolute poverty" line (approximately $90 per year); an additional 35.5 million rural population live above that level but below the official "low income" line (approximately $125 per year) (2007)

Less than 10% of the Chinese population is "low income". A wiki article on Poverty in the United States says about 13% to 17% of the US population is below the poverty line. Chinese do better. Going further, according to Bureau of Statistics of China the Per Capita Annual Net Income of Rural Households rural which you have said are the ones suffering most, has increased from 686.31 yuan in 1990 to 2936.40. That's an increase of 400%. There's also this: Percentage of Rural Households Grouped by Per Capita Annual Net Income.

Third link : ? Who's point are you trying to prove?

That the Chinese are trying to fight inequality of income.

Here is my proof :
http://www.chinability.com/Reserves.htm

That proves nothing other than China has the largest foreign exchange reserves. Guess what? China is the largest exporter, would you then say it should be the wealthiest nation?

in the short term their citizens are getting artificially low wages to make it possible.

Yet those Chinese you decry as being paid low wages fight to get those jobs. In fact what you are doing is trying to impose your own living standards on others and when their living standards don't measure up then you say their suffering. But in fact you don't know how the economy works.

Falcon

I don't know why the link didn't display properly, anyway - here it is: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2002rank.html?countryCode=&rankAnchorRow=#

Read this if you haven't. There is something very odd about the way the man of the hour welcomes the others in his opening remarks.

Anyhow, the remarks about Emmanuel, the presence of Biden, plenty of evidence to suggest that the CIA has the potential to fall hard enough to take down some favored sons. The leak situation must be addressed by fundamental policy shift, and the CIA needs to be fulfilling their duty in the most objective manner possible to save some heads.

The information battle field has always belonged to those that survive the war. This is the guidance the CIA should be shepherding towards the Pols with regards to the leak reaction. Time will tell if it happens. Right now too many Pols seem to act as if the U.S. and allies are supposed to ascend some sort of data throne to rule the new age. There is a throne, and hackers manning the sewers beneath... Get it... MANNING ;)

Yes, but why are they wasting time on this nonsense when they could be investigating serious threats like the Moro Islamic Liberation Front?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moro_Islamic_Liberation_Front

The Director of Central Intelligence was aware of their activities at least 5 years ago!:

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2005/Goss_testimony_02162005.html

'In Southeast Asia, the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) continues to pose a threat to US and Western interests in Indonesia and the Philippines, where JI is colluding with the Abu Sayyaf Group and possibly the MILF.'

Never presume ineptness where fraud fits the situation better. As evidence surfaces more and more how three-letter federal agencies actively partake in the drug business, (some even post blurbs blurbs about it on their web site) the War On Drugs seems to be not at all about protecting any potential user. It's about keeping the drugs expensive by keeping non-governmental traffickers out of the trade.

Iran has 10% of the world's reserves of oil.

Did you know that NewYork City has 468 train stations, only 35 less than the total number of train stations in the rest of the country? And has a daily ridership of 5.1million people. Compare this with the airline industry which (from various sources) claim that as many as people fly in the United States each day.

Btw, in the US there are 14,951 airports as of 2008, including 5,146 with paved runways, and 9,805 with unpaved runways.

The problem here is that you have 5.1million people trying to make it through 468 train stations each day. That doesn't include people taking regional (like Amtrak) trains into NY and then transferring to local trains.

Can anybody imagine trying to scan all the passengers that go through 42nd Street? 58million per year... If I have to get to the subway station an hour ahead of my subway, I might as well take a cab, or walk.

Apply here.

>>>We need to lose about 3 billion people

You've been unfairly marked troll.

But if the US, EU, AU, and Asian communities enacted a 1 child per family policy like China has done, their respective populations would drop to 1/10th present levels by 2110. i.e. From ~3 billion to 300 million. That alone would solve our pollution problem, and yes it would be humane (no need to kill anybody).

Uh, no.
Nearly all of EU, and America have population rates around the same as China.

And at this time, China has migration outwards, while EU/America have migration inwards.

And the west's birth rate is MUCH lower than China's. If you want to lower the world population, then you would get China, India, South East Asia, and Latin America to inact AND ENFORCE 1 child / family rule.

So, lets stop with spreading the bullshit, eth mate?

>>>We need to lose about 3 billion people

You've been unfairly marked troll.

But if the US, EU, AU, and Asian communities enacted a 1 child per family policy like China has done, their respective populations would drop to 1/10th present levels by 2110. i.e. From ~3 billion to 300 million. That alone would solve our pollution problem, and yes it would be humane (no need to kill anybody).

Uh, no.
Nearly all of EU, and America have population rates around the same as China.

And at this time, China has migration outwards, while EU/America have migration inwards.

And the west's birth rate is MUCH lower than China's. If you want to lower the world population, then you would get China, India, South East Asia, and Latin America to inact AND ENFORCE 1 child / family rule.

So, lets stop with spreading the bullshit, eth mate?

Fine if the TSA wants ground transportation security jobs... let'em put search/patdown officers 24/7/365 at every bus stop, car rental lot, garage and available yard for parking outside private building complexes so "everyone is safe." Anything else would be a half-assed effort at their current ridiculous goals.

But, wait... nothing will scale that large in any world economy. The TSA is affording employee wages for only 15 thousand airports in the USA, which is fine seeing how it's a fraction of a percent out of our 150M employed/unemployed workforce count (see Economy \ Labor force section of the CIA factbook.)

NOBODY can provide enough 1:1 patdown manpower for the country's more than 60 million registered vehicles. If the government and TSA drafted that required minimum 40% of our available workforce just for searches and patdowns, we'd have 0 manpower for convenience stores supplying our daily food, and secretaries. And enough people would stop making lucrative private business cash that the political support would have to stop such a thing.

Fine if the TSA wants ground transportation security jobs... let'em put search/patdown officers 24/7/365 at every bus stop, car rental lot, garage and available yard for parking outside private building complexes so "everyone is safe." Anything else would be a half-assed effort at their current ridiculous goals.

But, wait... nothing will scale that large in any world economy. The TSA is affording employee wages for only 15 thousand airports in the USA, which is fine seeing how it's a fraction of a percent out of our 150M employed/unemployed workforce count (see Economy \ Labor force section of the CIA factbook.)

NOBODY can provide enough 1:1 patdown manpower for the country's more than 60 million registered vehicles. If the government and TSA drafted that required minimum 40% of our available workforce just for searches and patdowns, we'd have 0 manpower for convenience stores supplying our daily food, and secretaries. And enough people would stop making lucrative private business cash that the political support would have to stop such a thing.

1099s - when was this optional?

There used to be no such thing. The 1099 is due to a new rule passed in the late 1900s that requires payers of money to report who they paid money to, for the purpose of taxing the income. Of course, before income tax, reporting such things was optional usually, and it became more mandatory in more and more cases over time.

Abortion - always either optional or forbidden.

Originally forbidden... became an option in some jurisdictions. It is already known that there is such a thing as Compulsory Abortion. This happens mostly in China and similar jurisdictions, and is a method of population control. In the future, this will become mandatory in more jurisdictions in some cases, where babies are genetically tested in the womb, and parents begin to be found liable for genetic problems of their children that they knew about and did not abort.

Health insurance - approximately everybody would have it if it were affordable, so not really optional.

It is optional even if you can afford it, or at least, it was before the law was passed. "The law" isn't the only thing that make things optional or not. Health insurance was made "more mandatory" by increasing costs, and people's income not increasing to match higher costs -- you could always pay health care expenses out of pocket. This has become harder, due to government regulation of the industry by reducing competition, and increasing liabilities, making having insurance less of a de-facto option.

Social security - never optional.

Social security is the government scheme that makes retirement and "retirement insurance" or "saving for retirement" mandatory. Before this scheme, 'saving for retirement' was optional. The prior option would be to have children and others care for and support you in retirement.

The draft - never has been optional

The example was military service, not 'the draft'. "The draft" or the "selective service", for example, in the US, is a scheme that makes military service mandatory at various times.

Charitable donations - not mandatory.

They are because they are made for you. Even if you only pay taxes, you are donating huge amounts to charity, because they are taken right out of the taxes.

They were made mandatory by using taxpayer dollars to fund them. Essentially, the governments of various countries take money from citizens and give them directly to any 'charitable' causes that ask. For example, taxpayer dollars are used to fund infrastructure used by non-profit organizations, in the US, and yet 501(c) organizations, including political and other interest groups, industry associations, etc, are exempt from many taxes.

Many also receive additional funding from the government in various other forms. "Welfare" in the US is also another example of forced charity.

Voting - not mandatory.

In certain jurisdictions (For Example: Australia, Belgium, Germany, Brazil, Greece, Chile) it in fact is mandatory or required under penalty of law, and failing to vote can carry a penalty, usually something minor like an administrative fine, forfeit of certain privileges and licenses, revokation or denial of passports, disqualification from access to certain government services.

Jury duty - was this ever optional?

Jury duty was not always compulsary service, with jurors selected at random.

Institutional schooling - not mandatory, but you do have to educate your children. Is this supposed to be a bad thing?

I'm not taking a position on whether it is bad, good, or neutral.

It is essential mandatory. There is still "option Y" in that case, home school, but it is in the later stages of being excluded, it just hasn't been outright banned yet, in the US, anyways.

Legal representation

Maybe I'm being pedantic here, but "Work it out among yourselves and no hitting" is still 2 rules, and usually there's a lot of rules that people don't even understand underlie those principles.

Ok, that is true. But my point is that society functions quite well on far fewer rules and regulations than we currently have.

All you need to do is watch an episode of Judge Judy (or equivalent show) to see that "Work it out among yourselves and no hitting" often fails to work out.

Judge Judy isn't a rule, she's an arbitrator of final resort. It still doesn't prove a need for the vast web of rules we currently have.

This sort of dialog routinely frustrates me. The US government currently consumes or redistributes almost a quarter of US GDP (we ignore here state and local contributions, this is just the federal stuff). That's a huge amount of resources and well worth a few billion dollars of bribes to get a significant portion redirected your way.

Yet a modest proposal to reduce the extent and power of the federal government is met with accusations that corporations will make their own rules and/or this will lead to anarchy. One wonders how society managed to function in the days when the federal government was insignificant.

Sure it's not the greatest of ideas to revert to the social problems of the 19th century. But there's got to be a better balance between the wants of society and the future of that society than provided by the current US government.

*double facepalm*

Nice job picking the first map in your Google search without cross referencing and verifying the information elsewhere. You fail.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2178rank.html

The Albert tar sands will be the single biggest source of U.S. oil imports this year, and even though about 2/3 of proven reserves (not including the sar sands) are in the Middle East, that region only accounts for about 1/3 of production. Canada is far, far more important to the U.S. energy future (not only for oil, but also gas and electricity) than the Middle East, which is still significant, but not overwhelmingly so.

You have a point, but consider - the UK and the USSR were both at the height of their power while the US existed (the USSR didn't even exist before the US, while the UK was at the height of its power in the early 1920's) , and they both fell out of that position while the US existed, both largely because of the influences of the US. They also both still exist in incarnations that are internationally strong.

You also assume that the Chinese government doesn't collapse before the relatively small weight of the US debt to China (curently about 800b, if memory serves) grows to proportions that crush the US economy. With current policy measures, the national debt is being pushed in a direction where it won't grow very quickly over the next 50 years. I don't think they will, but it's always possible.

The US doesn't even need to have someone else buy more debt. It's not like 56% GDP debt is a totally unmanageable figure, even without drastic measures like the ones instituted in Greece (look at Japan for proof that you can claw out of any debt situation if the country is determined). A relatively small changes, like letting the Bush tax cuts for > $250,000 earners, brings the US very, very close to a 0 deficit budget. All it takes is $600b (deficit numbers for the past 2 years are hugely inflated because of stimulus). It's predicted that the Bush cuts (if all are left to expire) would net 3.3 trillion over 10 years - that's half our real budget deficit, and the other half is being poured into wars against the stone age.

Just imagine what would happen to our deficit if SS and Medicare are reformed in a significant way. We'd have 0 debt within a decade

The United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, France, Voice of America, The Washington Post, the BBC, ITN, The Times of India, Time and most British newspapers use Burma for the name.

Good enough for all of them, good enough for me.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bm.html
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35910.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/1300003.stm
http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/pays-zones-geo_833/birmanie_551/index.html

http://www.ekonomifakta.se/sv/Fakta/Ekonomi/Tillvaxt/Sverige-i-valstandsligan/#
"GDP per capita, PPP corrected, Swedish krona"

http://www.ekonomifakta.se/en/

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sw.html
"Population below poverty line:
NA%"

Norway is a huge fucking exception. Their economy is doped by the oil.

Wonder if we could do the same with ~ 15% of the worlds uranium supplies. Better sell it while demand lasts? =P

It's not?

They have a .gov, http://americansamoa.gov/

The CIA says it's an American Territory
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/aq.html

"unincorporated and unorganized territory of the US; administered by the Office of Insular Affairs, US Department of the Interior"

And the Chief of State is President Barack H. Obama (since 20 January 2009); Vice President Joseph R. Biden (since 20 January 2009)

And Federal Courts seem to have jurisdiction there
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g12eg7I_LzFPejurt2SCzPBgW1EAD9I99MRO0

So it's pretty much technically a part of the United States

Really? Because the Vatican says otherwise. So does the CIA.

Citation? Certainly. "Religions: Christians 33.32% (of which Roman Catholics 16.99%, Protestants 5.78%, Orthodox 3.53%, Anglicans 1.25%), Muslims 21.01%, Hindus 13.26%, Buddhists 5.84%, Sikhs 0.35%, Jews 0.23%, Baha'is 0.12%, other religions 11.78%, non-religious 11.77%, atheists 2.32% (2007 est.)" From https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html#People That puts Catholicism as just under 51% of Christians, well above the other groups.

(ever notice how "anti-government protests" in pakistan have english placards ... When hardly anyone there even speaks English ...)

Of course that couldn't be because English is the official language used by the government:

"Punjabi 48%, Sindhi 12%, Siraiki (a Punjabi variant) 10%, Pashtu 8%, Urdu (official) 8%, Balochi 3%, Hindko 2%, Brahui 1%, English (official; lingua franca of Pakistani elite and most government ministries), Burushaski, and other 8%"

No, its probably done in order to make some American, somewhere, look bad somehow. Seriously, everything really is about you.

They were violating UN sanctions against Iran. So it should be unlawful in any civilized country.

Except all (read the introduction) the UN sanctions against Iran are related with its nuclear program. That's a bit of a distance from interception/monitoring technology
(besides I really wouldn't expect Nokia or Siemens to conduct unlawful businesses, at least not unlawful under the Germany, Finland or Iran legislation)

Bit silly to say Afghanistan isn't a threat when it has been unable to stop its citizens from starting wars.

Here's a list of the 9/11 hijackers. Not a single one of them is an Afghan citizen. No Iraqis on the list, either. The vast majority were from Saudi Arabia and the UAE. As of today, nearly 9 years after 9/11, we still do not have an extradition treaty with either nation. Even if we had discovered evidence to charge someone with, we could not extradite them to face charges for their crimes.

The CIA says you’re wrong.

18 years of age (17 years of age with parental consent) for male and female voluntary service; maximum enlistment age 42 (Army), 27 (Air Force), 34 (Navy), 28 (Marines); service obligation 8 years, including 2-5 years active duty (Army), 2 years active (Navy), 4 years active (Air Force, Marines) (2008)

On 16 December 1993, the National Cryptologic Museum (NCM) opened its doors to the public...

Really, selling online I've noticed that Europeans are terrible consumers. They don't listen well to our support staff, they immediately charge back if the service is not up to par, etc. etc. It's a hell dealing with Europeans.

If you're looking to make money, honestly, invest in US consumers first. Much easier to part them from their money and to convince them not to cancel/buy more.

Maybe this is related to the fact that the European Union has per-capita GDP of $32,600 (#42 in the world), while the United States has per-capita GDP of $46,400 (#11 in the world). As people get richer, it's less and less worthwhile to spend time being picky about what you buy. I bet Europeans are a heck of a lot less picky than Middle Easterners, say.

opps supposed to link to the CIA's The World Factbook
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Five billion dollars is still a lot of money.

But put the numbers in perspective.

US GDP $14,260,000,000,000 (2009 estimate, courtesy of the CIA)

$200 Billion equals 1.4% of the GDP
$5 Billion equals 0.035% of the GDP

One is a problem worthy of immediate attention. The other is a problem to worry about when nothing else is pressing.

Just do a search in the source of http://www.cia.gov/ for the word 'Plone' you will see it. They've been using it for at least the past 6 years now.

Ditto http://www.fbi.gov/

Plone's security is one of its major plus points compared to the myriad of PHP systems.

-Matt

While I would agree that your math indicates that our long-term war in Afghanistan hasn't exactly been of great value to neither Afghanistan nor the United States, I see one fault in your logic. Rewarding warlords with "peace-time hush-money" only sets precedence for other countries at conflict with the United States.

I think that as soon as these guys get wind of the Afghan-US welfare program, I promise you that they're going to start raising hell w/ US troops, expecting the same type of hush money in return.

Except they have 177 million people. And plenty more radical Muslims. And nukes. Don't forget the nukes.

Personally, if we fuck up Afghanistan, it's not the end of the world. But I sure as hell wouldn't want to piss off Pakistan.

According to the CIA World Fact Book:

• Population: 29,121,286
• GDP (Per capita:) $800 (2009 est.)

So now, expenditure over six years (Jan 2004 - Dec 2009) is $300,000,000,000.00 divided by six is around $50,000,000,000.00 per year

Per capita is $1,716.96 or more than double the GDP per capita of the country!

I would think that the US would get better resultsif the money was simply given to each inhabitant, the $800 they already make plus $1,700 from the US, would triple the GDP per capita, no small feat.

Just smile for the camera and show that you have not handled explosives or fired guns in the last week (paraffin test) and you get your weekly expenditure; you don't show up for a week then you lose the privilege, i.e. you knew you couldn't pàss the test.

Who said "You Can Rent an Afghan But Never Buy One"? It would rent the whole lot of them for a long time!

"Our own socieconomic models are designed for the military industrial complex to provide a reason for its existence."

Japan has one of the lowest military expenditures as a percentage of GDP in the world [1], yet is the third largest nuclear power user in the world [2]. Granted, most energy is imported as fuel. But your argument that the military industrial complex demands centralized power is flawed: industrialization in general demands centralization.

Who's going to build the "natural gas turbines, solar power, gas, oil, solar and wind and geothermal, nuclear and space [sic]" plants? I suppose those parts will be built in factories. Where will those factories get power? Well, it would be most cost effective, due to economies of scale, to build one large power plant to power the factories. And now you've ended up with a single, large power plant in order to build your hypothetical small ones.

Costs of transmission versus costs of production and fixed capital costs favor centralized power. Indeed, as Freeman Dyson will tell you, cheap, centralized power enables Western prosperity.

Decentralized energy production is what humanity had for most of its history, and relative to today humanity was for most of its history utterly destitute. Cheap energy means less poverty. That's why we love oil; that's why the Chinese burn so much coal; that is what makes us so advanced today.

Thus, though you're concerned with socioeconomic problems, I consider "14 families [controlling] all of the worlds energy supplies" (a gross exaggeration) a small price to pay for bringing billions of people out of poverty.

[1] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html?countryName=Japan&countryCode=ja&regionCode=eas&rank=149#ja
[2] http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf79.html, more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan