200% agree. I don't think we would have finished WWII or entered into WWI if we had a true Democracy. Our instant news media and internet make a Republic much harder, esp when the concepts are no longer tought in schools.

 

I agree with you, roger.

Things could get far worse much faster than anyone has anticipated in this thread. It could come down to a situation where ANWAR serves as a strategic reserve for the military and essential public services. While it's true that ANWAR can't keep the entire economy afloat for long, it would last much longer if used only for purposes of national defense/public emergency.

We can tolerate higher gas prices. As has been pointed out, the europeans already do and they are still healthy and comfortable, but they have much more sluggish economies than we do as a penalty. That's why it is the U.S. economy which functions as the locomotive engine that "pulls" the rest of the world.

If gas prices truly do "skyrocket" (and they will), there will be problems with civic order. During the Arab oil embargo of '74 long gas lines and spot unavailability of fuel led to fist fights in some of the gas lines. Things probably will get worse than that at some point.

 

This is begining to sound more like a discussion about what happens if/when we pull out of Iraq that a post WW-II one.

 

That's exactly what we're discussing. The Afghanistan and Iraq wars. And how it was a bad idea (which I knew back in 2001, but everybody around me insisted, "We must go get Bin Laden" and the Congress just blindly listened). If you study history, you may recall a similar war in the late 1700s... many Americans wanted to declare war on the French. At that time, the leaders had enough guts to say, "Bad idea," and ignored the people.

Wish we had leaders with ***** like that today. With over 80% support in polls, because the people demanded Bin Laden's head on a platter (i.e. send out the troops and eliminate him).

That's the flaw when you run a gov't by democracy.
You get poor decisions made in the heat of the moment,
and with little thought by the masses as to long-term consequences. We're not really a republican government... not when the leaders are just saying, "What do today's poll numbers say?" rather than think for themselves. That's a democracy.

True. Personally I'd like to see an amendment where elected leaders are no longer part of a party. They must renounce their affiliation in the same breath as they swear an other to a higher affiliation (to protect, preserve the Constitution). Where did I say it was?

BTW the senators we appointed by the State Legislatures, and the legislatures were elected by the People. So the Senators had to keep their citizens at least semi-happy, else they might demand said Senator be yanked-out & replaced by somebody else during the election.

 

Is that the case? Or is Japan just "lucky"? In the right place, in the right time. The Japanese build small cars, but do they build small cars because they are preparing the future?

No. They build small cars because they live in small spaces. There's not a lot of room in Japan for everybody to own an SUV. So the Japanese build small.

Americans don't like small cars. They prefer big cars. So American companies build what American citizens demand.

And the Japanese just sit on the sideline.

Barely selling.

Until suddenly an oil crisis hits, and suddenly gas skyrockets, and Americans turn to whatever small cars they can find. In the 70s it was Japanese. In the 2010s it will be Japanese and Europeans (who also make tiny cars).

It's just luck IMHO.
Big cars sell well when gas is cheap.
Small cars sell well when gas is high.
The system could be saved if it was "needs based". i.e. You would not receive a social security check until you run out of money. Of course when I propose that idea, people immediately accuse of "stealing my money".

They must think SS is some bank account.

It is not. That money is GONE (given to their deceased parents).

We only get back money by taking it from our kids and grandkids paychecks. And why should we take from our kids/grandkids? They're not rich. And besides, most of us still have $100,000 (or more) in our IRA & house to survive, so it's not as though we need monetary assistance. (Meanwhile our poor kids/grandkids are struggling to get by, because their paychecks are disappearing into SS taxes.)

 

Thanks for pointing out my error on original intent appointment of U.S Senators.

Just to remind you: We are still in Iraq a couple of years, after poll after poll, and an election pointed us out of Iraq.

 

Good observations on cars but Japanese car manufacturers were selling quite well in the 90's as well.

In terms of your solution to social security/medicare, perhaps with medicare it would work and is already implemented to some extent, but with SS I think it incentivizes the wrong kind of behavior. Remember people don't live in a vacuum and even the poorest make rational economic decisions.

Thats part of the problem with social welfare safety nets: the incentivize externalities (both positive AND negative). Look at our crime problem for example: know who commits violent crime? Poor people. But when you look at fertility rates they are low for the middle class, higher for the wealthy and higher still for poor people. Whereas before social safety nets life would have been so difficult they would have likely curtailed their reproduction to lower rates or would have to rely on their family/extended family which would encourage them to better themself, with social safety nets it incentivizes them to reproduce more and no such community pressure. Part of the reason the family unit, extended family unit and close community has disintegrated over the past few decades is likely because the government has provided an alternative (the taxpayer). Effectively they have created moral hazard.

Now before you accuse me of trying to better society via eugenics I am only advocating an honest look at the underlying drivers. The middle class are effectively subsidizing the reproductive habits of the poor. And it, combined with medicaid is going to be a fiscal nightmare. George W just threw jet fuel on the fire with his medicaid entitlement enhancement, pushing up the insolvency date by a few more years.

 

With SUVs. Not with small cars. The Japanese did well because they were making big SUVs to suit american demands. The Japanese were imitating Ford, GM, Chrysler by making tons and tons of SUVs.

But the smaller cars, were not developed for america (where small cars don't sell). They were developed for Japan which has a high demand for tiny cars. The Japanese carmakers are building for their own needs.

American carmakers don't have that market. Thus they don't build them. Either in the 70s or the 90s.

The Japanese have an advantage in terms of LOCATION (tiny island with limited room). It has nothing to do with better company ethic or risk-taking. For the Japanese building small cars is not a risk. It's an obvious solution to meet demand on the home island. I don't understand how only giving SS payments to people with no money would incentivize wrong behavior? What kind of wrong behavior?

 

If you know or expect that you're only going to get SS payments if you have no money upon retirement, you are going to align your behavior to spend more now so that you will have no money at retirement to take advantage of the expected subsidy, having a negative impact on personal savings.

On the Japanse I see your point I overlooked that there is less downside risk for them in building the smaller cars.

 

The argument that there's less risk in building small cars for the Japanese may have had more validity forty years ago. Everybody has known since the mid seventies that Americans will buy (want to buy) small cars if they are just MADE WELL!

Detroit chose to manufacture small cars that were crap because the profit margin was better on larger cars, not because of "risk".