Slashdot Mirror
In the Year 2020
An anonymous reader writes "Every 5 years, the CIA funds a detailed forecast of the future 15 years hence. The biggest trend identified in the latest report is the economic and technological rise of Asia."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
For those who do not want to read the entire report, here are a few key points:
* Al Qaeda is replaced by decentralized terror groups which are equally deadly.
* China and India emerge as new global players. (But they could be competitive instead of cooperative)
* Rise in military strength of China and India - could lead to conflicts.
* Russia and Central Asia decline (in terms of democracy)
* Democracy grows in the Middle east.
* More competitive world for the United States
* India's Bollywood outshines Hollywood
* Rise of Korean Pop.
Now make your own predictions.
"When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail." - Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)
We as a nation have historically weathered contentious times in relatively peaceful fashion.
...
While I agree with your fears that this may be the end, contentious times have frequently seen periods marked by violence. There were numerous labor protests in the late 19th century and early 20th century, dozens of people were shot dead by the police during many riots, the crowd's lynched policemen and members of the moneyed class. Not that they teach this stuff in HS History class
In the 60s and 70s, the President was assinated, we we in a war which was much bigger then the Iraqi conflict as it is today, there were massive race riots, radicals on the left were blowing up banks, radicals on right were burning down Churches, sometimes during Sunday school with children still inside.
I'm not saying everything is better today, but things aren't nearly as violent as they have been during some periods in the past.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
>one big spender with another
Under Clinton the budget was balanced and the deficit was gone. This "spendocrats" myth is just that. Historically, Democratic Presidents have been much more fiscally responsible.
How the hell can you have a detailed forecast of something 15 years in the future? Do they employ an army of psychics or what?
Some political anaylists are very good at this sort of thing. Pat Buchanan predicted an attack on the US mainland that would kill "thousands" back in 1999, and a second Iraq war (he even got the year right) in his book "A Republic Not An Empire".
What does this gain? They're just throwing away money every 5 years. It's mostly just: a)Wishful thinking b)bad extrapolation of current trends
It's good to work out all scenario's so you can plan for them. Speaking for the military, would you rather them have an attack plan for everyone, just the nations you don't like, or nobody since it might not get everything right anyway?
I'm glad our government is at least thinking about the future and planning.
In his first few days as president, Bush ripped 1.3 trillion away from the budget surplus. The average American got about 300 dollars from this, while owners of large corporations got millions.
Clinton set aside 2.5 trillion in the surplus to account for the aging baby boomers, and when Bush was giving his speeches in 2000, he promised not to touch it.
Within the first year we went from a 5.3 trillion surplus down to 1.8 trillion. So far he has lost 9.6 trillion dollars from his "tax cuts", going from the highest surplus in history, to the highest debt in US history.
Democrats in general do not want to raise taxes, they want to get rid of all the loopholes that allow for large companies to cheat on their tax returns, which is hardly the same thing.
Cheney very clearly said in the vice debates (2004) that he wants to make the US the #1 place in the world to do business. While I do see the logic behind such a statement, I tend to disagree with it.
In the year 2525
If man is still alive
If woman can survive
They may find........
In the year 3535
Ain't gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lies
Everything you think, do, or say
Is in the pill you took today
In the year 4545
Ain't gonna need your teeth, won't need your eyes
You won't find a thing to chew
Nobody's gonna look at you
In the year 5555
Your arms are hanging limp at your sides
Your legs got nothing to do
Some machine, doing that for you
In the year 6565
Ain't gonna need no husband, won't need no wife
You'll pick your son, pick your daughter too
From the bottom of a long glass tube
In the year 7510
If God's a comin' he ought to make it by then
Maybe he'll look around himself and say
``Guess it's time for the Judgement day''
In the year 8510
God's gonna shake his mighty head
He'll either say ``I'm pleased where man has been''
Or tear it down and start again
In the year 9595
I'm kinda wondering if man's gonna be alive
He's taken everything this old earth can give
And he ain't put back nothing...
Now it's been 10,000 years
Man has cried a billion tears
For what he never knew
Now man's reign is through
But through the eternal night
The twinkling of starlight
So very far away
Maybe it's only yesterday...
In the year 2525
If man is still alive
If woman can survive
They may find.......
The President also lauded 1997's budget agreement for helping to stimulate the economy. But as James Glassman points out, "We would be far better off if it hadn't happened," since "Congress and the President agreed to boost spending by $70 billion, or 4.4 percent, in a year in which inflation is rising 1.7 percent."
Syndicated columnist Dale McFeatters recently reminded his readers that Bill Clinton was a "sword-point convert to the cause of deficit reduction." Before the GOP gained control of Congress in 1995, "the idea of a balanced budget was espoused only by a small group of Republicans and so-called Blue Dog Democrats, genially regarded by their colleagues as cranks. Red ink was seen as a way of life, whether through Democratic spending or Republican tax-cutting."
But in the wake of the Republican revolution, a balanced budget "seemed attainable, and Clinton was dragged, kicking and screaming, toward that goal, submitting budgets that promised a balanced budget in 12 years, then ten, then seven and, finally, in the 1997 budget agreement, five years, by 2002." He then submitted a budget that would supposedly balance the books by 1999, with a surplus, despite its call for more than $113 billion in new spending.
"How does he do it with a straight face?" McFeatters asked rhetorically. "Simple. He's Bill Clinton."
The "surplus" charade raises some troubling questions. During fiscal 1999, for example, Mr. Clinton forecasted a budget surplus of $9.5 billion, meaning that $9.5 billion of the gargantuan national debt (the total owed by the federal government) should be eliminated -- right? Wrong! According to Mr. Clinton's own fiscal 1999 budget document touting the $9.5 billion surplus, the national debt would increase from $5,544 billion to $5,738 billion during the fiscal year. How can the national debt increase by $194 billion when the federal government spends $9.5 billion less than it takes in?
It gets worse. Beginning with the fiscal 1999 surplus, Mr. Clinton forecasted an unbroken series of annual surpluses totaling $219 billion through the year 2003. Yet, during this new era of budget surpluses, the national debt would increase from $5,544 billion to $6,336 billion, for an additional $792 billion in red ink. The overall discrepancy between the claimed surpluses and the projected increase in the national debt during 1999-2003 is $1,011 billion, not exactly pocket change even for Washington spendaholics. (Keep in mind too that these projections come from Mr. Clinton's own budget and are based on rosy economic projections, meaning that the increase in the national debt, and therefore the overall discrepancy, could be much greater.) Again, how can this be with the federal government enjoying a string of budget surpluses?
The answer seems to lie in gimmickry that allows federal trust fund surpluses to be counted as revenue in the budget. Federal law requires that such surpluses be invested in federal securities, at which time they become debt that the government (Treasury) owes itself (trust fund). As a component of
--If something I said could be taken two ways, and one of those ways made you cry, then I meant the other way.
60k is wealthy. It's in the top 1% of world earnings. It's a working life take home of well over a million dollars.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking