How much longer has the American empire got?

[untermensche]

What does being a small portion of the slave trade have to do with having an economy with a foundation of slavery?

It is slavery that allowed the US, and other nations, to grow rich. It provided cheap cotton, a major commodity for trade.

The US had land and it could put those slaves to good use to create wealth. It didn't have to rely on the slave trade across the ocean for it's economy. It just used the wealth from commodities like cotton and tobacco and sugar to buy those slaves.

Well if having slaves was the key to prosperity all those other countries that had even more slaves must be even richer.

Haiti, Jamaica. Places like that.

Haiti was controlled by the Spanish and the French.

And slavery there make both those nations very rich and powerful.

And of course Jamaica was controlled by the British. And again, Britain did very well.

 

[dismal]

Well if having slaves was the key to prosperity all those other countries that had even more slaves must be even richer.

Haiti, Jamaica. Places like that.

Haiti was controlled by the Spanish and the French.

And slavery there make both those nations very rich and powerful.

And of course Jamaica was controlled by the British. And again, Britain did very well.

And Haiti and Jamaica. They are rich countries today because their economy was based on slaves.

Also, based on that map i linked it looks like India and North Africa had economies based on slaves. That's why they are so rich today. No doubt.

And South America. They had an economy based on slaves on steroids. They must be the richest people on Earth.

 

[bilby]

Haiti was controlled by the Spanish and the French.

And slavery there make both those nations very rich and powerful.

And of course Jamaica was controlled by the British. And again, Britain did very well.

And Haiti and Jamaica. They are rich countries today because their economy was based on slaves.

Also, based on that map i linked it looks like India and North Africa had economies based on slaves. That's why they are so rich today. No doubt.

And South America. They had an economy based on slaves on steroids. They must be the richest people on Earth.

That's just a waste of steroids. If the slaves are worked harder, they will bulk up anyway; Just have the overseer be more vicious with the whip.

 

[untermensche]

Haiti was controlled by the Spanish and the French.

And slavery there make both those nations very rich and powerful.

And of course Jamaica was controlled by the British. And again, Britain did very well.

And Haiti and Jamaica. They are rich countries today because their economy was based on slaves.

Also, based on that map i linked it looks like India and North Africa had economies based on slaves. That's why they are so rich today. No doubt.

And South America. They had an economy based on slaves on steroids. They must be the richest people on Earth.

What does any of this hand waving have to do with the fact that the US economy had slavery as it's foundation?

Slavery provided cotton and tobacco and sugar and other essential commodities cheaply.

And it was Spain and France and England that grew rich and powerful because of the slavery in Haiti and Jamaica, not the slave colonies. The US grew rich from the slavery under it's control as well.

That is not hard to understand.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

International Slave trade was outlawed by the United States in 1807. The perennial battles with the Pirate city states of the Mediterranean Sea lasted from 1801 til 1829. If the US Navy were sent to protect slave ships, it would have been for a very short period of time.

At the outskirts of the American/British system were the slave traders.

At the outskirts of the Ottoman Empire were the Barbary Pirates.

In Africa, mostly young men were enslaved by one system. In the Mediterranean, other, just as innocent young men, were enslaved by another.

Whenever you're defeated by the facts you respond with ideology that has nothing to do with the facts.

With no slave trade between 1807 and 1829 there would have been no slave traders in range of the Barbary pirates. Thus slavery couldn't have been driving their attacks.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I like the position of the critics.

Unless one country directly and obviously rules another, it isn't considered to be the boss. Just like how the Eastern Bloc countries weren't part of the Soviet Union so were therefore completely free and independent of Moscow.

 

[arkirk]

The U.Sl maintains and operates more than 900 military bases worldwide. It spends as much on its military as the rest of the world combined. It is the only country to have actually used nuclear weapons on people and while it maintains and now is set to "modernize" it nuclear winter sized nuclear weapon stockpile, its leadership preaches to the rest of the world how evil it is to not be the U.S. and possess nuclear weapons. The U.S.'s power in the world is deployed not in service of its people but instead in service of its corporations. Obama appears to be the first president who brags about how accurate he can be with his assassinations of people he doesn't like or trust around the world. Yet, he has a Secretary of state who is hip to the fact that Iran and Russia and Cuba have leaders with similar methods and fearful reactions as he has. Empire..it is truly a transnational empire of commercial exploitation that blurs the lines between government and private business, much in the same manner as occurred in Germany as it set out to solve its "problems" through military means. Yes it is an empire and it is adept at keeping its state secrets and never backing down...especially when it is in the wrong. We have innocent prisoners in Guantanamo and hold Guantanamo itself hostage due to a lying war fought at the start of the last century. Somehow I feel the same horror at my government's actions as the late Gore Vidal and understand full well why he dubbed our country "The United States if Amnesia."

 

[Will Wiley]

What empire?

I think this post was accidentally created without the accompanying RT video link.

Apologies for that

Prefessor Johan Galtung back in 2009 predicted it would end in 2020. Previously he had said 2025.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfcoNlhxRow[/YOUTUBE]

But I'm more interested in what Americans think.

 

[Will Wiley]

Cultural historian Morris Berman has been a bit more pessimistic.

During the final century of the Roman Empire, it was common for emperors to deny that their civilization was in decline. Only with the perspective of history can we see that the emperors were wrong, that the empire was failing, and that the Roman people were unwilling or unable to change their way of life before it was too late. The same, says Morris Berman, is true of twenty-first century America. The nation and its empire are in decline and nothing can be done to reverse their course. How did this come to be?

In Why America Failed, Berman examines the development of American culture from the earliest colonies to the present, shows that the seeds of the nation's "hustler" culture were sown from the very beginning, and reveals how the very tools that enabled the country's expansion have become the instruments of its demise.

At the center of Berman's argument is his assertion that hustling, materialism, and the pursuit of personal gain without regard for its effects on others have been powerful forces in American culture since the Pilgrims landed. He shows that even before the American Revolution, naked self-interest had replaced the common good as the primary social value in the colonies and that the creative power and destructive force of this idea gained irresistible momentum in the decades following the ratification of the Constitution. As invention proliferated and industry expanded, railroads, steamships, and telegraph wires quickened the frenetic pace of progress—or, as Berman calls it, the illusion of progress. An explosion of manufacturing whetted the nation's ravenous appetite for goods of all kinds and gave the hustling life its purpose—to acquire as many objects as possible prior to death

The reign of Wall Street and the 2008 financial meltdown are certainly the most visible examples today of the negative consequences of the pursuit of affluence. Berman, however, sees the manipulations of Goldman Sachs and others not as some kind of aberration, but as the logical endpoint of the hustler culture. The fact that Goldman and its ilk continue to thrive in the wake of the disaster they wrought simply proves that it is already too late: America is incapable of changing direction.

Many readers will take exception to much of Why America Failed—beginning, perhaps, with its title. But many more will read this provocative and insightful book and join Berman in making a long, hard reassessment of the nation, its goals, and its future.

Chris Hedges also seems to think a post mortem is appropriate. I prefer Galtung's optimism
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpIrqXgWPxo[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Will Wiley]

I like the position of the critics.

Unless one country directly and obviously rules another, it isn't considered to be the boss. Just like how the Eastern Bloc countries weren't part of the Soviet Union so were therefore completely free and independent of Moscow.

The critics haven't taken a position. They have split hairs and avoided answering the question of how long it will last.

If you ask someone from virtually any corner of the globe they will know what is meant by the American Empire, but you and almost evry american here don't know what it means?

 

[bilby]

I think this post was accidentally created without the accompanying RT video link.

Apologies for that

Prefessor Johan Galtung back in 2009 predicted it would end in 2020. Previously he had said 2025.

So the self admitted uncertainty in his prediction is now more than the time remaining for it to occur?

Somehow I suspect his foresight may not be 20-20. Or even 20-09 or 20-25.

The USA isn't going anywhere as global hegemon any time soon. Even his later estimate seems wildly implausible, barring an unforeseeable disaster, such as the eruption of the Yellowstone caldera.

 

[TV and credit cards]

For as long as the US dollar stabilizes the world's economy and is backed by faith in the US military. Who says we have to physically occupy other nations to have an empire? The US can maintain it's empire for as long as it is largely perceived as the good cop. For as long as the world's central banks and sovereign wealth funds have faith in it.
Just don't be a dick.

 

[untermensche]

At the outskirts of the American/British system were the slave traders.

At the outskirts of the Ottoman Empire were the Barbary Pirates.

In Africa, mostly young men were enslaved by one system. In the Mediterranean, other, just as innocent young men, were enslaved by another.

Whenever you're defeated by the facts you respond with ideology that has nothing to do with the facts.

With no slave trade between 1807 and 1829 there would have been no slave traders in range of the Barbary pirates. Thus slavery couldn't have been driving their attacks.

Sure, the slave trade ended in 1807 just like the drug trade ended when that was made illegal.

Actually the slave trade increased because all the law did was make slaves more valuable. And there were next to no mechanisms to enforce it.

 

[Will Wiley]

For as long as the US dollar stabilizes the world's economy and is backed by faith in the US military. Who says we have to physically occupy other nations to have an empire? The US can maintain it's empire for as long as it is largely perceived as the good cop. For as long as the world's central banks and sovereign wealth funds have faith in it.
Just don't be a dick.

I think you're right. As the empires wars are funded by borrowing a strong USD is needed, though theres a limit to how much you can borrow too

 

[funinspace]

I like the position of the critics.

Unless one country directly and obviously rules another, it isn't considered to be the boss. Just like how the Eastern Bloc countries weren't part of the Soviet Union so were therefore completely free and independent of Moscow.

The critics haven't taken a position. They have split hairs and avoided answering the question of how long it will last.

If you ask someone from virtually any corner of the globe they will know what is meant by the American Empire, but you and almost evry american here don't know what it means?

LOL...You really should have provided some context relative to the phrase "American Empire", if you didn't want to have the thread devolve into petty squabbling over the meaning of words.

Anywho, with the demise of the old USSR, the US quickly got used to a new normal, even if it wasn't really a normal. We battled with the USSR in a bi-polar world since the end of WWII. After the USSR collapse, we then were able to dominate many areas more freely/easily.

I wouldn't give a singular date or year, for the end of the "American Empire", but I do think the world is starting to evolve into a multi-polar world. At some point in the next decade China will most probably become the world's largest country by GDP, which will be an important milestone. They already have their international financial transaction system (CIPS) replacement for SWIFT already running. I doubt China will become strong enough to supplant the "American Empire" even if they wanted to. However, I do think we are slowly loosing our capacity to drive things our direction. The ME being on fire doesn't help much either. Eventually, Americans will tire of a trillion dollar military-complex being hoisted upon them by the Democins and Republocrats. When it comes down to cuts in the military-complex vs. SSA and Medicare in say 5-8 years, the people will choose their butter. But short of an economic collapse akin to the GD, then I think it will take roughly another decade before "the end"...

 

[BH]

From what I have read of Morris Berman's works he doesn't think the US is going to actually dissolve into smaller countries like the USSR did. I think, and kinda agree, that we are just going socially and econmically backwards. In the next twenty or so years we will be more of a second world nation as far as living standards go. I see this where I live right now compared to what people had in the late 70's and the 80's.

 

[4321lynx]

From what I have read of Morris Berman's works he doesn't think the US is going to actually dissolve into smaller countries like the USSR did. I think, and kinda agree, that we are just going socially and econmically backwards. In the next twenty or so years we will be more of a second world nation as far as living standards go. I see this where I live right now compared to what people had in the late 70's and the 80's.

Growing obscene economic gap between rich and poor may cause a crisis when, if ever, right wing poorwhite Rednecks realize they've got the shitty end of the stick too. That is if they are not too stupid and race obsessed.

See post 1047 in another thread for how the US got here.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?48-US-President-2016-the-Great-Horse-Race/page105

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I like the position of the critics.

Unless one country directly and obviously rules another, it isn't considered to be the boss. Just like how the Eastern Bloc countries weren't part of the Soviet Union so were therefore completely free and independent of Moscow.

The critics haven't taken a position. They have split hairs and avoided answering the question of how long it will last.

If you ask someone from virtually any corner of the globe they will know what is meant by the American Empire, but you and almost evry american here don't know what it means?

You missed my sarcasm, I understand what is meant by the American Empire and I too wonder how long it will last.