Slashdot Mirror
US Supreme Court Allows Sonar Use
gollum123 writes "The US Supreme Court has removed restrictions on the Navy's use of sonar in training exercises near California. The ruling is a defeat for environmental groups who say the sonar can kill whales and other mammals. In its 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court said the Navy needed to conduct realistic training exercises to respond to potential threats. The court did not deal with the merits of the claims put forward by the environmental groups. In reinstating the use of sonar, the top US court rejected a lower federal judge's injunction that had required the US Navy to take various precautions during submarine-hunting exercises. The Bush administration argued that there is little evidence of harm to marine life in more than 40 years of exercises off the California coast. It said that the judges should have deferred to the judgment of the Navy and Mr Bush. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said overall public interest was 'strongly in favor of the Navy.' 'The most serious possible injury would be harm to an unknown number of the marine mammals,' Chief Justice Roberts wrote. 'In contrast, forcing the Navy to deploy an inadequately trained anti-submarine force jeopardizes the safety of the fleet.'"
"Can you hear me now? Good!"
They didn't deal with the claims put forth by the environmentalists? Then what the hell DID they consider besides the Navy's side? (No, I didn't RTFO.)
Those who anthropomorphize science and/or nature already believe in an intelligent designer.
The president may be changing soon but the current one has stacked the Supreme Court with Justices that will uphold his views and policies for quite a while.
"The most serious possible injury would be harm to an unknown number of the marine mammals," Chief Justice Roberts wrote. "In contrast, forcing the navy to deploy an inadequately trained anti-submarine force jeopardises the safety of the fleet."
Caution be-damned in the name of the national defense.
Chief Justice John Roberts said overall public interest was 'strongly in favour of the navy.' 'The most serious possible injury would be harm to an unknown number of the marine mammals,' Chief Justice Roberts wrote. 'In contrast, forcing the navy to deploy an inadequately trained anti-submarine force jeopardises the safety of the fleet.'"
Fools. Have they not seen Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home?
The Navy has even admitted that active sonar is harmful and results in deaths of marine mammals, but like with the EPA, investigations with facts harmful to the administration's opinions are erased.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
I don't think the Navy as a government organization or the president have anything relevant to say in the matter. It is what the marine biologists and the science they do says. If their science says that such operations definitely harm marine mammals, then the Navy should be required to take certain precautions before doing their exercises. If there is no conclusive evidence, or if the evidence is circumstantial at best, then there's no reason to stop the Navy from doing their thing until such evidence is found.
Now, if the evidence was indeed that strong, maybe PETA or some other animal rights group can and should bring suit against the Navy for harming the animals. If indeed the evidence is that strong, then this ruling is meaningless (the Supreme court didn't comment on the environmentalist's stance, which leaves the door wide open for more lawsuits). But until that time that the evidence really becomes that strong, I'm not sure national security should be jeopardized for the sake of a hunch or even an educated guess.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Third World countries don't often have submarines. When they do, they're diesel submarines. Which tend to be quieter than nuclear submarines. And smaller. And harder to detect.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Well, the Cold War was relatively recent, nothing was really "fought" so to speak, but submarines were a big deal, a constant threat.
Breyer wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. He agreed that the district court failed to follow the law when it imposed the two restrictions at issue on the Navy's sonar testing pending completion of the environmental impact statement. In this portion of his opinion, he agreed with the Navy. In the second part of his opinion, he disagreed that the proper response was to get rid of the two conditions.
Stevens concurred in the first part of Breyer's decision and did not join the second part. In other words, he concurred in the judgment of the Court. In total, seven justices agreed with the Navy's position that the district court's order was not in accord with the law.
China has plenty of subs, and I promise you they don't give a crap about whales.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, no matter how ill-informed it may be. You could, however, at least have gotten the quote right: "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far."
This ain't rocket surgery.
True, and I ain't a hippie by a long shot, but it kills me that military advancement is always considered more important then environmental impact. Yeah it's a couple whales, who cares so long as our military is more stream lined.
I'm not pro-animal; I'm just anti-human superiority complex. For all we know, killing off all the whales could result in their food overpopulating, and so on and so forth. Of course, we won't know until we try, so let's go ahead and try so we can see just what kind of impact it would have.
Buuut if we're gonna go down the route of importance of lives, I would guess that deciding that the lives of these sailors, who are trained to kill people, are more important than the people we are training them to kill (whichever people they may be when the politicians sign the bill and write the check).
War is as pointless as the people that push for it. I'd say, you can't be pro-life if you are pro-war; war kills people, and as soon as you sign your life away or support it, you are saying that murdering people is important enough that you are willing to do whatever it takes to do it (and don't get me wrong, if someone shoots us, we should shoot right back, but it's a shame that us 'advanced humans' can't even manage to live on different continents without wanting to kill each other).
When the "fucking whales" go mad from all the pinging and start tipping over boats. Full of babies. American babies. Who will have white skin. All of them.
Or when they start humping US submarines thus giving away their position when those evil terrorist Al-Qaeda submarines come along.
And haven't you seen that documentary earlier this year? It was in all theaters.
You don't fuck with the big underwater creatures.
Or they will come out, rip off the head off of the Statue of Liberty, rape it, and throw it in the middle of Manhattan.
Cause that is what happens when you fuck a whale in the ass, Larry.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not...
We've already killed off most of the megafauna that existed on this planet. I want to keep what we have left.
((really.. were you being sarcastic? It'd be kind of hard to justify the existence of any living being based on that criteria. YOU certainly wouldn't escape the rendering plant.))
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
A very noble thought indeed, but unfortunately not liking war isn't the same as not understanding there are times for it, and preparing yourself for other countries which may not believe the same way.
Additionally, you have to remember that as far as our country's military leaders are concerned the people who choose to enlist in our military are more important than those who they may have to fight against.
Indeed. At this point it looks like we're aiming for a clean sweep of Phylum Chordata in a "there can be only one" sorta fashion.
A very similar test to simulate what this high powered sonar would sound like to someone under water, for Bush and the crypt keepers on the supreme court.
Stick their heads inside a 55 gallon drum and blast Metalica in the other end @ 400 db.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
Umm... this isn't a lobbyist getting a federal law to overrule a state law. This is a national defense issue, whether you agree with the decision or not, and should be decided on the federal level.
It isn't. Every military installation has a strong environmental office. Expensive cleanups are commonplace, and there is training to avoid the contamination in the first place. Combat training even gets scheduled around the habits of endangered species on the post.
Having been in a war, I'm definitely not pro-war. If you think war sucks, try being in one, it sucks even worse up close. But I definitely believe in saving the lives of our troops through proper training should war be necessary. We can only hope that an appropriate balance between environment and training is struck, and that unnecessary wars aren't entered into. We can vote out presidents who we don't think make that balance. We had that chance in 2004, but we blew it.
Despite China maneuvering itself into third-world status for the purposes of the Kyoto Treaty, China isn't third-world. By definition, I don't think you can consider one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to be third-world.
But, yes, they aren't exactly hampered by lawsuits or demonstrations when they want to conduct military training.
There's old Russian and Chinese diesels that they might have, and they're loud. But some of the modern German designs are almost impossible to passively detect.
I routinely spend large amounts of time at sea for the US Navy. The ship I am on doesn't have active sonar, but:
- We have a OS(W)or AB(W) topside at all times watching when we are underway watching for whales. The whale has the right of way.
- We're not allowed to intentionally encroach within 1km to a whale. Dolphins and similar are fast moving/smart enough to think we might eat them. Most whales appear to think we are a really big whale and seem to like coming over to visit.
- If our direction of travel is blocked by a whale, we must either steer to avoid or perform a rather unloved manuveur known as a 'crash stop'.
- If we are operating with another ship we must abort operations if a whale enters the area.
Of course they aren't, that isn't the point. The point is, they have a significant naval presence in the Pacific, and are more than enough reason to conduct sonar training exercises there.
If I was a Chinese admiral, I'd be looking into ways to harness whales to tow my subs towards the American coast right about now.
Oh, thanks for pointing out that the Supreme Court has the right to interpret anything any way they want without review or consequence and as such we should all blindly reserve any negative criticism we may have regarding their decisions I had nearly forgotten that those with the authority to make decisions should be revered absolutely when they do.
I see! Since Congress decided to give the military funding, the President has the authority to issue any order he wishes without regard to to any other congressional statute. We should expect that if the Congress passes a law restricting the activities of government that the President's authority allows him to disregard that. It is great that justices who claim to be supporters of legislative primacy would choose to ignore the plain letter of the law and not require that the executive petition the Congress for redress.
Is there any way they can discourage the whales from coming around? Like maybe ring off the testing area for a couple hundred miles with buoys that make enough noise to be irritating to them?
The Court didn't address the environmental impact for good reason. In particular, no law governs this aspect of the Navy's environmental impact. So basically you're criticizing the respect of the rule of law.
Why do you keep insisting that we follow the bad guys' example?
Saddam tortures prisoners? Hey, we gotta do that too!
Putin spies on his citizens? Cool, let's wiretap all Americans!
Bin Laden wants to destroy our Freedom? Quick, let's destroy our own freedoms, or the terrorists win...
Re-verify our range to target... one ping only.
Captain, I - I - I just...
Give me a ping, Vasili. One ping only, please.
America will be fine. No doubt, things do not look good but we will work our way out of this just as we always have for the last 250+ years.
Some perspective is needed regarding the financial pecking order of the world.
America is wayyyyyyy ahead, in terms of wealth. Yes, we have debts. But we also have - by far - the largest percentage of wealth in the world. By a whole lot.
A hell of a lot has to go wrong before America loses AAA.
The best part is: if you don't agree, you can do a trade and retire for life if you are right.
Just go short some US Treasuries.
I'll be on the other side of the trade.
So this explains why whales are long-extinct in Star Trek
The idea that anything labelled "national defense" automatically overrides the concerns of the local democracy (in this case the citizenry of California and Hawaii) would be in that category I mentioned above of "whatever ideology is in vogue". I don't happen to agree with that ideology.
"National defense" is why we threw US citizens of Japanese extraction into concentration camps in WW II, to our national shame.
"National defense" is why we wasted 58,000 American servicemen's lives in Vietnam, not to mention many times that number of Vietnamese, civilian and otherwise.
"National defense" is why the US has a military budget larger than those of Europe + China + Russia + all three "Axis of Evil" nations *combined*.
Feel safe yet? Maybe "national defense" shouldn't be an automatic, knee-jerk pass anymore.
He was planning on using ostrich eggs. They're good enough for dinosaurs!
Why not just use laser pulses? Can we not attenuate a beam to sweep/scan the ocean instead of detectable sound, or is that just not feasible??
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
"Dolphins and similar are fast moving/smart enough to think we might eat them"
You wouldn't know it by the way they race with our ships. When I was on the Enterprise, the Dolphins (Porpoises perhaps?) would run right along side us, playing all day. They were fearless, swimming into our wake, under our keel, even running out ahead of us withe the carrier only a few yards behind. I can't speak to whale experiences, but as far as Dolphins went, the Big E had no "policy"... hell, as fast as we could go, they'd go faster, and sometimes run rings around us. And they looked like they were having fun doing it.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Very informative. Thanks for sharing your real world knowledge.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
So basically, what you are saying is that you'd rather risk losing a US Aircraft carrier with several thousand men and women aboard to a new class of ultra quiet diesel submarines, so that you can save a few whales.
Bravo.
Is there ever a case where the environmental movement actually supports humans, let alone Americans?
I think not.
This is my sig.
Diesel submarines quieter then nuclear powered ones ? You were being serious ?
Well, you have just shown how little you know. Diesel submarines underwater are running on battery power. The only noise is from their propulsion system which can even be stopped i.e. no noise. The nuclear sub must keep cooling pumps and other machinery active even if not moving - it can never be completely quiet. While nuclear subs usually have a greater firepower it is diesels that can cause the most problems to someone trying to find them. Yes, they are noisy on the surface when recharging but that isn't the usual operating profile when you are about to attack someone.
All modern submarines are quieter than their predecessors but you will ignore the threat posed by diesels at your peril. We haven't lost the knack, it has always been the same problem.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
Needs citation.
Obama will be Commander in Chief soon. He can just order them not to use it. He can also negotiate an international treaty regulating the power and frequency of sonar (although there will be a lot of other stuff on his plate). Monitoring compliance should be pretty easy. IANASubmariner, but doesn't active sonar GIVE AWAY YOUR POSITION which is kind of, ummm... bad for a submarine? Let's say the sonar is not actually on the sub; it would still "light up" the entire area, right? It would be the naval equivalent of a parachute flare. So, perhaps the idea with this thing is to light up the entire coast so we see anything that approaches; but unless we have it running almost all the time, it'd be useless. It seems like if you want to put an underwater defensive zone across our coasts, a well maintained network of passive and/or weaker active systems would do the job OK.
The bottom line though, is that the marine life along our coast is a valuable resource. You don't defend yourself by sacking your own resources. That's just nuts. The court blew it, and these 5-4 decisions... well, they just show that the court seems to have forgotten about the Constitution. They've become nothing more than political proxies, which is sad.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I mean, what if the USN is operating off of Iran or Venezuala for some reason and they fire off a torpedo and sink a carrier because the Navy could never find the sub as they had no practice?
What if space aliens use their mental powers to sink a carrier? What if Indian super undercover operatives attack US military outposts around the world? OMG time to increase your military budget! It could happen any minute... Now... Or now!
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
We? Uh, most of the megafauna died off on their own bat long before humankind became a significant threat to their species. Humamnity isn't the only cause of extinction you know. Mother nature can be a bitch.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
You can want to keep it all you like. That doesn't mean it's important for the continued survival of most other life on Earth.
A quick re-read will also show that he also didn't suggest killing anything. He simply stated that *if* they died things wouldn't be that bad.
I'm confused - can anyone explain how and why tagging this 'fuckthenavy' is helpful?
What if space aliens use their mental powers to sink a carrier?
The type 212 and 214 submarines are not space aliens. They are carrier killers in littoral waters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine
OMG time to increase your military budget! It could happen any minute... Now... Or now!
You know if our worthless European allies weren't selling weapons to all of NATO's rivals, we wouldn't have to. I hope they remember that as President Obama evaluates American alliances, he will do so with the cool detachment of being the first American to evaluate Europe without the cultural sentiment that comes from being commonly white. Ah look, he's already talking about pulling missiles out of Poland, and was non-commital about the Russian invasion of Georgia.
This is my sig.
"How do you see a whale underwater with binoculars?"
You do realize that whales are mammals, with lungs?
It's that pesky having lungs, needing to breathe AIR curse at work here.
Apparently, air breathable by lung equipped mammals is in short supply underwater.
*hint* They have to come to the surface, thus are readily spotted when they do.
It has been done this way for centuries, only the ships and tech have changed. Even with a sharp eyed observer in the 'crow's nest' of real old school ship, equipped with only a pair of Mk1 Eyeballs worked very well.
"Seems like everyone in this thread bought the lie that we need the govt to protect us at all costs."
Uhmm...No. That has been a minority attitude and viewpoint on /. according to my observations. (I have no data to back my opinion up here, so I could have just focused more on comments that were against nanny state/over protective type government due to my own bias)
"No captain of any seagoing vessel that does not respect the ocean upon which he sails ever escapes the wrath of Neptune."
I agree wholeheartedly here, but probably do not feel as strongly about it as you.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
By definition, I don't think you can consider one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to be third-world.
Security Council membership has nothing to do with the definition. If you want to consider the original definition, then China would be second-world (Soviet-allied), though that distinction never really made much sense since the only way in which they were allied was that they shared a similar form of government and a dislike of the US. They would never actually help each other, at best they would arm proxy nations on the same side.
If you'd like to go with the more modern quality-of-living definition, most of China is indeed 3rd world. The farmers that were the backbone for China's industrial revolution and subsequent wealth make up a large majority of the population and yet are abused by their government to the point where they live in abject poverty. Sure those that live in the cities have it well off, but China really has two nations much more than the US has had in the last 100 years.
So the Navy does these vital training exercises, oh, I don't know, somewhere else? Somewhere where whales are not.
Someone said earlier in the post, when the sound of the Navy's high powered sonar was just like an F22 jet breaking the sound barrier 100 feet above your house (ie, loud enough to cause you physical pain and hearing damage) that if there were jets doing that, they would simply move. It's a little hard for the whales to do that, because apart from the fact that the sonar travels for hundreds of miles in water, in the shallow portions of the coast where these exercises take place, there aren't a lot of places for the whales to escape to.
I don;t think I'm going to convince you to consider other arguments though, given your immediate leap to the unpatriotic "why do you hate america?" spiel and your general axe that you seem to want to grind regarding people who aren't just thinking about number 1 all the time.
Try poking your head above the Halliburton-sponsored propaganda materials for a few minutes, you might learn something. Ohh, I went there. Probably shouldn't have, but you have to keep the flames going I guess.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
what if the USN is operating off of Iran or Venezuala for some reason and they fire off a torpedo and sink a carrier
'for some reason' hides a multitude of sins. What possible legitimate reason could there be for military operations off the coast of Venezuela? The idea of a just war seems to be sadly absent from US foreign policy these days - odd for an apparently Christian nation. Having a more vulnerable fleet is only a moral problem if you are involved in a moral war, otherwise I'd say it would be a good way to force a government to think harder about diplomacy, which might be a secondary agenda for 'environmentalists'.
Of course, 'moral' and 'public interest' don't always coincide, so maybe the court saw 'public interest' and 'global military dominance' as one and the same, which is cause for concern in itself.
giving the fact that most of the groups trying to stop this are irrational most of the time I would suggest the Navy only be permitted to test sonar on land.
I read some of the quotes. The fact remains that no harm was shown to marine life in the area the Navy uses for testing. Harm was shown elsewhere in the world but not specific to the claims presented here. Throw in the fact that according to one of the protesting groups the NRDC said the use of high- intensity sonar could disturb or threaten 170,000 marine mammals, and it predicted the exercises would cause permanent injury to more than 500 whales and lead to temporary deafness in at least 8,000 whales.
In other words, there isn't an area of sea on this planet that would be acceptable.
Find a place a majority of the group agree the testing can take place and the rest will get it blocked. The simple matter is that there are times when the "possible" harm to marine life must be acceptable.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
We went active one time against a real target in over 3 years. This was against a US Sub that we had visual on as we both left Norfolk at the same time and we pinged the hell out of them to bother them.
Other than that, we only went active in port during maintenance, or underway at night when we were bored on the mid-watch and wanted to wake the ship up.
Our real combat training was all accomplished via a computer simulator, no active transmission was required... This was good because the system was broken most of the time anyway. It was painted though, the captain was adamant about that.
"But even if it's against a real threat, it's obvious some put the lives of whales over the lives of our sailors. In fact I noticed that the far-whacko environmentalists are more anti-human than pro-animal. That's a lot of self-loathing there."
Questions:
1) Do you have any pets?
2) How much have you spent on them compared to people dying of starvation in 3rd world nations?
It's possible you don't have any pets, but you'll hopefully see my point - that many humans care more about animal welfare than they do about humans, it's really not that unusual. In fact, it happens all around us- if animals are shot on a film for example it can often bring up far more emotions than a human being shot. Many people would rather go out and buy a pet dog than send the money to Africa.
I'd guess it's perhaps the fact that animals are too dumb to be evil and intentionally be malicious pulls on people's conscience much more when these animals have had problems caused to them by humans who are very easily capable of being both evil and malicious.
So really, I wouldn't call them whacko, I call them humans with a conscience. At the end of the day, the loss of many human lives will likely actually have a positive effect on the world when you look at it scientifically (i.e. less pollution, perhaps less conflict) whereas the loss of a group of many of a species of animals has a negative effect (food chain collapse for example perhaps). Perhaps it's just a matter of realising that the world consists of more than just humanity and that many species of animals are as important to the world as any human ever will be.
the notion that submarine warfare is still so relevant that lesser training in sonar intelligence could cost millions of Americans life, reminds me of that Maginot strategy.
So what new tech will replace the submarine in a future conflict? Or do you believe all wars will be asymmetric battles fought between land locked countries?
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
I breathe sarcasm. Priorities of the people are skewed; we prefer superior killing rates to protecting the planet (or rather, stopping us from harming it).
We've been doing sonar training for decades. Only relatively recently did the environazis come up with this approach to hurting people in the name of animals.
The sound goes a long way, for sure. I don't it hurting the whales at that distance but it's certainly doing something, even if it's just freaking them out and causing them to rush to the surface faster than they should, or beaching themselves to escape it.
I will agree that there are some environmentalists like you describe, but that's the same as me claiming that all Republicans/Big Business advocates are like Haliburton and Enron, out to scam, cheat, steal and lie their way to maximum profits at any expense, human or otherwise, with no morals or ethics of any kind beyond "must make money".
Look at Greenpeace. They have an overall ideology that I can agree with - saving the planet and generally being green and eco-friendly. However, they go about it in the same way Rush Limbaugh represents the christian right, so I want nothing to do with them. Their hopeless propaganda film about the evils and dangers of nuclear power with the "no more chernobyls" tagline is about as factual as me making a film trying to protest air travel by saying "no more Hindenburgs!". Their general approach just annoys me.
Or the animal rights protesters that dug up the graves of relatives of the owners of a science lab here in the UK that does animal testing. They held the remains hostage until the animal testing stopped. Not something I can agree with.
I don;t think you can generalise that even the leadership of the environmental movement is anti-american and anti-human. Al Gore , I would classify as one of those people, and he's on the boards of some big companies, and has been strong on "green" issues long before it was ever popular, or before he was famous. I don;t think it;s possible to consider him anti-american or anti-human.
Then you have people like me - a petrol head engineer who is pro-nuclear, pro-environment, pro-renewable energy, pro-industrial expansion, pro-car, pro-public transport, pro recycling.....
I believe that we can be eco-friendly and continue the technical advancement of the human race - they're not mutually exclusive goals.
+1 Insightful
I can't believe you got modded up so high. /. really lacks an understanding of global finance. In fairness, it is a tech site, so....
All I am saying is that people have been "predicting" the demise of the US capitalistic system for 100 years. Yet, here we are. We made it through the depression. We made it through the 70's and we made it through every single hiccup in global finance since it began. Over that time, we have amassed more wealth than any other country in the history of the world. I am correct that the US has more wealth than other nations - that is indisputable. The reason this matters is because we have a lot of "slack" to make mistakes (like you are seeing on the front pages right now)
Bury your head in the sand but here ya go. Here's a list of per capita GNI. The US is #7.
Here's another list, based on GDP. Please notice the US is compared to the ENTIRE EU -- not just individual countries.
Seriously, if the US wants to "work itself" out of this, we just reduce the Social Security commitments we've made. People don't seem to grasp that the government can pay any debt it needs to. Whether there is the political will to do it is another story. This isn't a story of the US not being able to pay its debts....that is nowhere near the case right now.
I mean, this isn't even close. Why do you think Treasury prices have been pushed up so far over the last 3 months? People around the world have been FLOCKING to the safety of US treasuries. People around the world still view the US as the safest place to invest your money. If they were junk, as you indicate, they would trade as junk and nobody would want them. Your claim is testable and easy to verify - just go look at the US Treas charts. After looking for about 2 seconds, it is easy to see that you are just plain wrong. IOW, you have no idea what you are talking about here....
Call me when the US defaults on it's bonds. That is news. Until it happens (and it won't), what you posted is just idle wanting. I understand where it comes from, I do. But it is not based in any rational evidence. It's simply emotion based on what you want to happen.
By the way, I don't know what country you are in but take a look at what has happened to your own country's bonds. Do you think they are a safer or riskier investment than US bonds right now? The world market for bonds says, not only is the US safer, but they are THE safest of all countries.
This is nowhere near 1929. Totally apples and oranges comparison. Things worked WAY differently back then than they do now. Additionally, your insinuation that US Tbills are backed by "toxic debt" is woefully simplistic. US Tbills are backed by 200+ years of the US paying it's bills.
Lastly, I really wasn't kidding about betting against us. If you are soooo sure of your position, then you can put your money where your mouth is and if you are right -- you will be set for the rest of your life. Please watch out for the bodies of your predecessors, however.
First, the US HAS MORE MANUFACTURING CAPABILITY THAN CHINA.
so why make such a ridiculous factually inaccurate claim.
Second, which countries consider "US Treasuries" (which I'm assuming you are using in place of some form of currency) junk?
It's funnyy to me that people like you are so invested in your distorted world view that you'd openly lie to protect it, rather than actually educate yourself.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
First, the ruling preserved the right exercised by the USN to use sonar as it saw fit in training. It overturned a judicial order by a lower court, rather than setting regulations.
Second, it is President Bush, the honorific goes to the office he holds. Dropping the title makes the BBC sound petty.
Further, I personally doubt Bush himself had anything to do with the case, if the Administration defended the Navy, that's its job, the Clinton administration preserved the same rights. It's important to note, only two justices rejected the Navy's case. From Bloomberg: "Liberal Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer dissented in part and agreed in part with the ruling, while Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter disagreed with the entire decision."
#-#
Ad Astra Per Aspera
A rough road leads to the stars
Actually, the inner ear gets damaged first, long before the eardrums actually rupture. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_damage#Long-term_exposure_to_environmental_noise
C - the footgun of programming languages
"Third-world countries" is probably a stretch, but less-wealthy countries are more likely to have diesel boats than nuclear boats. Diesel boats, when running on batteries (as they do when submerged) are quieter than nukes.
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
When you steal a tool out of someone's toolbox, that makes you anti-them.
Not necessarily. The US is a country, not just a group, so US environmentalists would therefore be anti-themselves, which makes no sense. It's also difficult to steal a tool when your taxes and votes are what put it in there in the first place. Remember that attempting to make a government do what you want is the core idea of democracy. Can you be anti-American when exercising your constitutional rights?
You also side-step the issue of who gets to define what 'American' is. Currently it seems to mean 'Patriotic without question', which is really just a way of saying that it's wrong to question what your government tells you, particularly if they're telling you to make America more aggressive and mighty. Is that a good way to be?
I have two quibbles with the story:
First, the ruling preserved the right exercised by the USN to use sonar as it saw fit in training. It overturned a judicial order by a lower court, rather than setting regulations.
Nowhere in TFS or TFA does it say that the ruling set any regulations, so what are you quibbling about?
Second, it is President Bush, the honorific goes to the office he holds. Dropping the title makes the BBC sound petty.
This is an inherent problem with reading TFS instead of TFA. In English grammar a person is referred to by title when first introduced, i.e. President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, but then subsequent references are to Mr Bush and Mr Blair. TFA follows this convention, but because TFS comes from a later part of the article, it doesn't contain the initial references.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Does that mean we shouldn't point out when the court system is failing to faithfully execute its office?
Note that I'm not saying that the court shouldn't have primacy in interpreting its laws. I'm saying that the court should force the executive to recognize legislative primacy when enacting laws. This case was about how to discriminate between the national security obligations of the military and the restrictions on environmental impact imposed by legislative action. Does the President have the right to ignore properly approved laws by claiming an impact on a national security matter, or does the President have to request a revision of the law before proceeding.
The court today ruled that the Congress need not be consulted and that the President can ignore the Endangered Species Act, and perhaps all sorts of other legislation, whenever he thinks it gets in the way of national security interests. This is why I say that the Supreme Court failed to enact the law which grants the Congress exclusive legislative power since the executive seems not to be bound to enforce it by this ruling.
The law already allows the Secretary of Defense to exempt from the coverage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act any actions deemed necessary for national defense. The DoD granted this exemption with certain conditions designed to protect marine mammals. The National Environmental Protection Act leaves whether to file an environmental impact assessment up to the federal agency, based on whether it thinks its actions have a significant impact on the environment (the Navy is filing one anyway, just to be nice, but it has an exemption for now). The Navy, according to law, even got an exemption under the Coastal Zone Management Act.
So what we have here is a law that leaves operations under the discretion of the executive branch in the interests of national defense, but the environmentalists decided they knew better what is necessary for national defense than the Navy. The court logically deferred to the Navy's professional opinion.
What you are missing is that today's submarines are more than the U-boats of WWII. Hurling missiles at enemy continents is what they are for now.
What possible legitimate reason could there be for military operations off the coast of Venezuela?
Gathering intelligence? They do it to us, we do it to them. Spying has probably prevented more wars than starting them, as we have a better idea of what's really going on.
As for relevance to submarines, read Blind Man's Bluff.
>>>provide me a war scenario on which submarine warfare has more importance in getting closer to the conflict resolution than tactical ground attacks, bombing, or hurling long range missiles from one continent to another
>>>
You have got to be kidding. Have you never studied WW2? Submarine attacks waged against Japan effectively cut-off the nation from access to natural resources, oil, even food. Germany did the same thing to Britain during WW1. In Britain's case the anti-sb destroyers were able to sink enough subs to save themselves, but in Japan's case they reached a point where the subs had cutoff their ability to continue waging war.
In a modern conflict between, say the EU and the U.S., submarines could have a similar affect of cutting-off the U.S. oil supply. That would effectively end the war. The U.S. needs its own submarine force to make sure that does not happen (sub-vs-sub warfare).
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
www.nationmaster.com/graph/ind_man_val_add_cur_us-manufacturing-value-added-current-us
Is China #1?
Well?
"compare China's balance of trade"
You're a fucking idiot. The balnce doesn't represent US trade capability, especially when you consider the fact that we export to China BECAUSE IT IS CHEAPER.
Then we use our manufacturing capabilty to make stuff that we can sell for MORE THAN THE STUFF WE OUTSOURCE TO CHINA.
You seem to be economically retarded.
"Taiwan does"
PROVE IT. You've already shown you'll lie, so prove it. Your word is worth fuck all.
Meanwhile, I posted irrefutable proof you're full of shit, which will come to nothing because you won't admit you were wrong.
Your kind never does, not even when you have undeniable proof in front of you like you do now.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
That's long term exposure. Pings are very short, and not all that frequent. The exception would be weapons sonar... and I dare say I would hope they weren't dropping live munitions.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
yes, submarine are cool, useful, stealth and so on. But future is unforeseeable and the only thing history teaches us is that the generic dug in tactic doesn't work. most of submarine task could now be performed by long range missiles.
You do realize how close England was in being starved out due to the U-boats right? And submarines aren't dug in the wall, nor are sonar nets. And you mention radar not stopping bombing raids, then grant that interceptors helped stop the German bombing raids, well part of that was due to radar providing warning of where the bombers were. As for the "dug in a wall", not every siege in history was successful(see Vienna).
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
Currently, we really don't know how the sounds we make in the water affects marine life. This includes sonar as well as all the other noise of traveling ships. There simply hasn't been enough research done. On one hand we have people in the Navy saying it doesn't do significant harm and on the other side we have environmentalists that think sonar "kills whales on contact" (Hawaii's Weekly magazine claimed this). Both are a bit off.
At Johns Hopkins University in May, I saw a lecture by Brandon L. Southall, a fisheries research biologist and director of NOAA's Ocean Acoustics Program within the NOAA Fisheries Office of Science and Technology. Currently he is in the Bahamas studying the behavioral response of marine mammals to audio. They would put a tag containing accelerometers on a whale for about 16 hours, and use it to observe the animal's normal behavior (data was collected in the tag which was retrieved later). Then they would play different noises, including mimicking other types of marine mammals, to see how the animal responded.
So far they had found that the sounds affected the animal's behavior: the animal would adjust its dive, sit still for long periods of time, make noises back, and usually travel away from the noise. However, there was simply not enough information to determine if this was a problem for the whales.
So my point being, not that they should be ignored, but the environmentalists in this case don't really have the information they claim to have about the detrimental effects to whales. All they really have right now are some incidents of beached whales, which isn't enough to draw good conclusions. We need more study.
From the Seattle Post Intelligencer:
"Quoting a 1907 statement by President Theodore Roosevelt -- "the only way in which a navy can ever be made efficient is by practice at sea" -- the high court's five-member conservative majority said lower courts had improperly restricted naval exercises off Southern California."
Nineteen.Oh.Fscking.Seven? That was the jumping off point for the courts decision?
This only goes to show that political fossils are alive and well, and engaging in the intelligent design of national policy in the 21st century.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
What the hell are you talking about?
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Fix your fucking bot or get rid of it!
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
America will now be safe from terrorist sea mammals.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
China is most definately NOT third world.
They are first world (these distinctions SUCKS).
They choose to keep their people living in third world squalor in order to keep those in power, in power.
I know, it's hard to make the distinction, but it's true. We are not up against Zimbabwe militarily... We are up against a superpower. And a superpower, by definition, is not a third world country.
BUT, the peoples of China most definately live in third world squalor. So did those of the USSR in the 80s. Not having buttwipe is pretty third world to me.
--Toll_Free
Mod this parent up.
I'm amazed.. American schools brought you into these lines of thinking?
I didn't think we had real schools left... You must be old, like me :)
--Toll_Free
As pointed out elsewhere it wasn't a 5-4 decision on the most important element of the case: Whether or not the federal court overstepped it's bounds. The navy won that one 8-1.
The common criticism of the use of this sonar as useless because it "gives away your position" shows ignorance of how the sonar is to be used & why it is needed.
This isn't for some some stealthy sub vs sub "whoever sees first shoots & wins". The enemy sub in the scenario where the sonar is needed is already sitting in an choke point or other area where the USN needs to operate. The ships the USN is deploying are not subs but a MEU, a freighter group carrying a division or a carrier group that are in no way stealthy. The sub already knows that the USN is in the area. The USN cannot prevent the sub from shooting at and maybe sinking A ship if it has chosen it's hiding spot well. However, the USN will willingly trade a frigate against the Gator or carrier the sub really wants to take out & frigates have a better chance of escaping a torpedo in any case. If the sub shoots at the frigate it surrenders it's stealth & will be killed before it can get to a high value target.
The USN needs this sonar & training to make sure that the (sacrificial if necessary) frigates that will employ the sonar are thorough enough to be able to sweep clean the ocean before the high value carrier/Gator/freighters get within range.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Modern American submarine nuclear reactors can operate without the use of cooling pumps. Even with everything else shut down, the core stays cool using the natural flow of the coolant. They only require the pumps to be turned on in times of higher power need, but reactor noise is the least of your worries when you're sprinting with that power.
I think your forgetting that we aren't living in the past. You see, Intel can get you information about where other people's missile bases are, all anyone will have to do is either disable them or strike outside their range. Now enter Submarines, they move, aren't detectable from the surface in most cases and you have no idea were the other side's missile bases are.
So lets fast forward to modern special opt insertion tactics. We send seals, rangers, Green berets, and other tactile personnel in on subs, The subs get the people so close to the shore or objective and they are released to either swim or use some sort of powered vehicle to go the remaining way to the objective. Now they do whatever they need to do, make it back to a place the sub can find them and poof, they are gone. There is nothing inherent about the US that means we are the only people who can do something like that. However, if the sub is detected by sonar, then we can either stop others from doing that or at least monitor them and take whatever action is appropriate.
Subs are not just about sinking ships. They aren't just about scaring enemy fleets. They gather intelligence information, they deliver troops, they move missile launch platforms around, they cut undersea communications cables, they even allowed us to tap into them to spy on the Russians during the cold war. Those tactics were and are effective unless we have a way to find the other subs and stop them. Stopping them doesn't even have to be that important either. In the Pacific theater during WW2, we found out that the Japs have broken parts of our codes and were able to intercept certain messages and could tell when we were moving troops, to where, where our defenses were down and so on. Instead of changing our codes and locking down our communications (something that would have taken considerable time and effort) we started feeding misinformation into the works and leading them into traps. Of course we eventually changed things up but knowing what was going on gave us the advantage that we simply wouldn't have if we didn't have the ability to know. Now, I'm not so sure that subs played a role in that but if we can't detect some subs, it will play a role in others gathering information against us if they use those subs just like we did with the Russians and other potential enemies in the past.
China invades Taiwan is one scenario where subs win the day.
Russia asserts its ownership claims of the arctic circle is another.
The US can launch a cruise missile attack at any position on earth with zero warning ONLY because we have an effective sub fleet. Long-range missiles launched from surface ships are no substitute since the target government might notice a carrier fleet creeping up to its coast.
As far as I can tell the yields for US bonds are sharply dropping at the moment
Methinks you need to quit while you are still whole. You have a serious misunderstanding here. It' so far offbase it's like you are sitting there telling me the sky is red. This is finance 101 stuff.
Here's why: Yields fall because the price paid for the bonds goes up (which drives down the yield because the coupon amount is fixed). Which is actually what *I* saying and the opposite of what you were saying. I have been sitting here telling you that US bonds are being bought for safety (thus the price goes up) and you reply to tell me yields have gone down. Yep, you're exactly right. If the US was going to junk, or even AA, you would see the yield go up and the price being paid for the bonds going down. Unfortunately for you, the charts are evidence for my position, not yours.
I won't reply to the rest as I've read Taleb's "The Black Swan" too. Like peak oil, it's interesting to think about.
BTW, are you really suggesting the bond markets and GDP are meaningless? If you think that, there is nothing more to talk about here. It's like a Java programmer telling me he doesn't know what an operating system is. No, thanks. I'll pass. Ask someone else because I can't help...
Maybe we could convince the Navy to use sonic weapons on the Japanese "research" ships that are out murdering aquatic mammals.
Watching you take this guy apart was very entertaining, and educational too.
In fact, I'd buy you a beer if there were some way to work it out, it was that fun.
Anyway, he's cleary ignorant, but don't stop.
Please.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
The balance of payment figures don't have ANYTHING TO DO with the manufacturing capability of the US, which was the point of contention.
I do believe that you use them for that purpose though, as you've demonstrated you're extremely ignorant of economic theory, and not particularly bright either.
Second, if you don't like my numbers, PROVIDE YOUR OWN TO PROVE YOUR POINT. If they're too old, provide newer ones that show you're not wrong.
Meanwhile, your defense is that in the 3 1/2 years the US went from #1 to "no manufacturing"?
Support the claim then, with links please, your word is worthless, and so are the balance of payment numbers.
Because, as tacokill has also demonstrated, you will move the goalposts and lie when proven wrong.
And as you have proven, when I say people like you lie then won't admit they're wrong, I'm usually speaking gospel.
That said, it's kind of sad watching you make a fool of yourself, if you had any credibility, you destroyed it with your pathetic attempts to defend your points in the face of irrefutable evidence.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
1) Do you have any pets? 2) How much have you spent on them compared to people dying of starvation in 3rd world nations? It's possible you don't have any pets, but you'll hopefully see my point - that many humans care more about animal welfare than they do about humans,
That's ridiculous. I care more about my hamster than I do some Dutch guy's son. I care about my son more than the Dutch guy's hamster. I care more about MY animals and/or kids, because they are mine, not because a human is more or less important than an animal.
then the Navy should be required to take certain precautions before doing their exercises.
Well gentlemen, the solution is obvious. Every time before the Navy wants to use the Sonar, they must drop depth charges into the ocean to scare off whales, lest they are harmed by the sonar.
Seems like you don't understand the connotation of "Supreme" in this context.
You're still effectively saying that you care more about an animal you own than another human being but regardless that wasn't my whole point. As I pointed out people will go and spend money on an animal they've never previously seen and have no attachment to instead of sending money to Africa. Similarly people who do donate to charity will often donate as much to animal welfare charities as to human charities proportionally.
Also note the point about harming animals in films and such, it's much more taboo to have some guys dog killed in a film than it is to have some guys kids killed for example.
Ummm, perhaps you forgot that submarines carry tactical nuclear weapons?
A quick Google shows that a) the US's balance of payments are horribly negative and b) BoP is an excellent indicator of manufacturing capacity going back to at least WWII. It makes intuitive sense too - when you manufacture goods and export them to countries who want them, you get money for your efforts. When you borrow money to consume - a la the US - you end up with a negative BoP, tons of debt and a whole bunch of industries that die on the vine.
The US used to make the world's best cars, computers, fridges, everything. Now its manufacturing base is all bankrupt and running to Uncle Henry for taxpayers' money. That doesn't sound much like a healthy manufacturing capacity to me.
There's a simple test about who's right and wrong here. When the US enjoys a long and sustained depression, I will regularly ask you how it's going.
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
Methinks you need to quit while you are still whole. You have a serious misunderstanding here. It' so far offbase it's like you are sitting there telling me the sky is red. This is finance 101 stuff.
Here's why: Yields fall because the price paid for the bonds goes up (which drives down the yield because the coupon amount is fixed). Which is actually what *I* saying and the opposite of what you were saying. I have been sitting here telling you that US bonds are being bought for safety (thus the price goes up) and you reply to tell me yields have gone down. Yep, you're exactly right. If the US was going to junk, or even AA, you would see the yield go up and the price being paid for the bonds going down. Unfortunately for you, the charts are evidence for my position, not yours.
Whoops, you're quite right. Mea culpa.
I won't reply to the rest as I've read Taleb's "The Black Swan" too. Like peak oil, it's interesting to think about.
You need to act on it, not just think about it. And you _still_ haven't answered any of my questions.
BTW, are you really suggesting the bond markets and GDP are meaningless? If you think that, there is nothing more to talk about here. It's like a Java programmer telling me he doesn't know what an operating system is. No, thanks. I'll pass. Ask someone else because I can't help...
Where did I say they were meaningless? For a start I pointed out that the source of US GDP - consumer spending - has been trashed. That's going to add up to a pretty horrible Christmas season for you guys.
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
Humans function as a natural predator, and as such are rather impacted by killing off our food/resource sources. As any natural predator, we might (and have) do just that, with far reaching but still limited consequences. Passenger pigeons, dodo birds, the like. The odd thing about humans is we keep things that have no further usefulness alive, often times even in zoos and nowhere outside captivity, figuring the species is so damn important.
"Protecting the Planet" is bull shit, straight and simple. It's hard to destroy. It can change, but life is designed to be rather viral. Look up Darwin's finches, here's what happens to a species that destroys its food source repeatedly....
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I read a lot in the news about the supreme court, but it seems they say yes a lot to the government, and they don't say no very often. Is it just me?
They did the exact same things we are doing today
No, no, no. Today is totally different than what we did back in 1929-1933. I mean, this isn't even arguable. Back then, they decreased the money supply and had MUCH more of a laissez-faire approach. Back then, there was no Federal Reserve and no FDIC.
None of those things are true today.
Back then, we lost about 50% of the banks in the country. We've lost a few recently, but nowhere NEAR anything "significant" (yet). Imagine what it was like to not know if the money you had in the bank was safe. Now magnify that across the whole country and you can easily see why bank runs happened back then. Combine that with a "tight monetary policy", and it's easy to see WHY there were such major convulsions back then. Nowadays, the first thing the govt did in this mess was to increase the insurance limit on bank accounts from 100K to 250K. Why? Because they KNOW they have to prevent those banks runs.
Again, your comparison is apples to oranges.
(BTW: I commend you for actually putting your money where your mouth is)
...a bad X-mas season does not add up to the fall of Western Finance and the capitalistic model (which is what you were originally suggesting).
One difference between you and I is that I read a book like The Black Swan and I have the advantage of having studied past history and putting the book into context. Like other fields, there are a million books on "what might happen if...". Taleb's book is interesting but like peak oil theories, it is impossible to say if he is right/wrong. But I do know this: everyone just like him who have predicted "the fall" have been wrong. All of them.
If you want to go against that backdrop, please, be my guest. But remember, pioneers almost always get shot in the back by the settlers.
I get the impression that you are having a hard time figuring out what is a "blip" and what is a "disaster". Everything you are seeing are blips. Go study 1890 or 1929-1933. Those were disasters. And evenso, we have recovered just fine from ALL of the effects of those periods. This is a matter of magnitude. We'll always have blips because capitalism is imperfect. The size of our economy and the management of our economy make it MUCH more difficult to have a disaster than it used to be.
I asked for sources instead of your opinion, yo gave nothing.
Because you have nothing and know it.
"Bop is an excellent indicator of manufacturing capacity"
How fucking stupid are you.
BOP measures the imbalance between imports and exports. You're using a metric that doesn't even measure manufacturing yet you keep lying about it's applicability?
So moron, if the US manufactures 100 trillion of goods, sells 80 trillion in the US and exports 20 trillion, while importing another 60 trillion, then it has a negative trade balance.
BUT THE 80 TRILLION IN MANUFACTURING SOLD LOCALLY IS NOT PART OF THE BOP NUMBERS.
So, either you're so ignorant that third grade math baffles you, or you're so pathetic that you use irrelevant numbers to defend a point that was destryoed three posts ago.
I asked for numbers showing China had more manufacturing capacity, you gave nothing.
I asked for proof of your lie regarding Taiwan rating US debt "junk" and you gave nothing.
You have nothing. Every single time you post, you lie more while giving no evidence that anything you've said is more than the wishful thinking of a loser who is so jealous of Americans that he'll make an ass of himself publicly in a sad attempt to to drag us down to your level.
NUMBERS.
I stopped giving a fuck about your trolling two posts ago, I just want to keep reinforcing that you're a liar who'll say anything to avoid admitting you're wrong.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
Their song is sad, traveling in pollution thick, where sounds so piercing, makes them sick. If these whales die, there won't be any others, who come from life's waves, praising sweet Mother! When those in metal skins have no place to roam, undersea, or in any other part of Earth's dome; perhaps, we'll remember, maybe we'll pick - these creatures with songs over destructive warships?
...a bad X-mas season does not add up to the fall of Western Finance and the capitalistic model (which is what you were originally suggesting).
I don't know what universe you're living in but Western Finance has already effectively collapsed. When governments around the world have to inject trillions of taxpayers' money into the system to try and get the engine working, then there's something desperately wrong.
A bad X-mas season is just a symptom of one of the major problems: US consumers are bankrupt.
One difference between you and I is that I read a book like The Black Swan and I have the advantage of having studied past history and putting the book into context. Like other fields, there are a million books on "what might happen if...". Taleb's book is interesting but like peak oil theories, it is impossible to say if he is right/wrong. But I do know this: everyone just like him who have predicted "the fall" have been wrong. All of them.
With amusing irony, you have completely missed the central point of The Black Swan, one with which Taleb beats the reader over the head on practically every page: one single highly improbable event can invalidate thousands of past observations.
If you want to go against that backdrop, please, be my guest. But remember, pioneers almost always get shot in the back by the settlers.
Being a pioneer in this field is about being self-sustainable, invisible and prepared to shoot - literally - settlers who aren't when the wheels come off.
I get the impression that you are having a hard time figuring out what is a "blip" and what is a "disaster".
Well gosh, let's see what's happened this year.
Are you seriously suggesting these are just blips?
The size of our economy and the management of our economy make it MUCH more difficult to have a disaster than it used to be.
I think it's the other way around. The size and interconnectedness of your economy with the global one means that it's much easier for a nasty problem somewhere to cause huge knock-on effects. Look what's happened already: SIVs based on US housing debt have caused financial institutions to fail all over the world. Governments have stepped in by lowering interest rates, printing money and bailing them out.
And the US is certainly no longer a capitalist society any more: you were socialist the moment you started bailing out banks who made bad choices, if not before.
Nobody can get credit, the asset-backed commercial paper market is dead, jobs are being shed by the tens of thousands in the SME market and the majority of consumers are up to their eyeballs in debt. Your infrastructure is shot to hell and local government is rapidly running out of money.
You're just getting started with this Depression and it will be the longest and hardest you've seen. You have no savings, no manufacturing base and your richest companies are struggling. In your obviously comprehensive studies of the past, have you ever taken a look at what happens when bubbles pop? They contract to _below_ what the levels were before. Bear in mind that this was the largest credit bubble in history. It will therefore be the largest contraction in history and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
I asked for sources instead of your opinion, you STILL gave nothing.
I didn't read your post because you're a liar, and I don't care about your opinion
If you have links that demonstrate you are not a liar in total opposition to all the evidence presented, then do so.
But save the spiel, I won't read that one either.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...