barmyrob
Mar 20 2008, 01:27 PM
QUOTE
A Bankrupt Superpower
The Collapse of American Power
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
In his famous book, The Collapse of British Power (1972), Correlli Barnett reports that in the opening days of World War II Great Britain only had enough gold and foreign exchange to finance war expenditures for a few months. The British turned to the Americans to finance their ability to wage war. Barnett writes that this dependency signaled the end of British power.
From their inception, America's 21st century wars against Afghanistan and Iraq have been red ink wars financed by foreigners, principally the Chinese and Japanese, who purchase the US Treasury bonds that the US government issues to finance its red ink budgets.
The Bush administration forecasts a $410 billion federal budget deficit for this year, an indication that, as the US saving rate is approximately zero, the US is not only dependent on foreigners to finance its wars but also dependent on foreigners to finance part of the US government's domestic expenditures. Foreign borrowing is paying US government salaries--perhaps that of the President himself--or funding the expenditures of the various cabinet departments. Financially, the US is not an independent country.
The Bush administration's $410 billion deficit forecast is based on the unrealistic assumption of 2.7% GDP growth in 2008, whereas in actual fact the US economy has fallen into a recession that could be severe. There will be no 2.7% growth, and the actual deficit will be substantially larger than $410 billion.
<more>
Pit-browLass
Mar 20 2008, 02:18 PM
QUOTE(barmyrob @ Mar 20 2008, 01:27 PM)

QUOTE
A Bankrupt Superpower
The Collapse of American Power
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
In his famous book, The Collapse of British Power (1972), Correlli Barnett reports that in the opening days of World War II Great Britain only had enough gold and foreign exchange to finance war expenditures for a few months. The British turned to the Americans to finance their ability to wage war. Barnett writes that this dependency signaled the end of British power.
From their inception, America's 21st century wars against Afghanistan and Iraq have been red ink wars financed by foreigners, principally the Chinese and Japanese, who purchase the US Treasury bonds that the US government issues to finance its red ink budgets.
The Bush administration forecasts a $410 billion federal budget deficit for this year, an indication that, as the US saving rate is approximately zero, the US is not only dependent on foreigners to finance its wars but also dependent on foreigners to finance part of the US government's domestic expenditures. Foreign borrowing is paying US government salaries--perhaps that of the President himself--or funding the expenditures of the various cabinet departments. Financially, the US is not an independent country.
The Bush administration's $410 billion deficit forecast is based on the unrealistic assumption of 2.7% GDP growth in 2008, whereas in actual fact the US economy has fallen into a recession that could be severe. There will be no 2.7% growth, and the actual deficit will be substantially larger than $410 billion.
<more>America is dying. Western civilisation is dying. It won't last to the end of the century.
Dickie
Mar 20 2008, 02:24 PM
And fpr a more optimistic outlook we turn to...?
nevski
Mar 20 2008, 03:11 PM
ceebeebies!
barmyrob
Mar 20 2008, 03:46 PM
Not if you watch In The Night Garden - that's fucking terrifying!
Jon
Mar 20 2008, 03:49 PM
I have no idea what anyone has posted on this thread, you're all on ignore.
Dickie
Mar 20 2008, 03:53 PM
The same approach to forum browsing as the U.S. has to its debt crisis.
Red Star
Mar 20 2008, 04:06 PM
So the UK is dependent on the US which is dependent on China
Private Fraiser was right .... we're doomed
Sarah lady
Mar 20 2008, 04:07 PM
QUOTE(nevski @ Mar 20 2008, 03:11 PM)

ceebeebies!
QUOTE(barmyrob @ Mar 20 2008, 03:46 PM)

Not if you watch In The Night Garden - that's fucking terrifying!
barmyrob
Mar 20 2008, 04:18 PM
QUOTE(Jon @ Mar 20 2008, 03:49 PM)

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: jon.
Joe
Mar 21 2008, 01:40 PM
I haven't been paying any attention to all this economy nonsense. That was until yesterday lunchtime, when I discovered that the price of crisps had risen by 25% overnight. Ohs Noes!
barmyrob
Mar 21 2008, 02:06 PM
I had to pay 85p for a Mars bar the other day!
aquaman
Mar 21 2008, 03:27 PM
QUOTE(barmyrob @ Mar 21 2008, 02:06 PM)

I had to pay 85p for a Mars bar the other day!
As I think I've mentioned before Rob, the only thing you
have to do is die.
Everything else is negotiable
LeftintheUS
Mar 21 2008, 03:41 PM
QUOTE(barmyrob @ Mar 21 2008, 07:06 AM)

I had to pay 85p for a Mars bar the other day!
Are Mars bars in the UK the same as in the US, or is this another of those double-reverse candybar switheroo things?
Joe
Mar 21 2008, 03:48 PM
If I recall correctly, what Americans call Mars bars, we call Milky Ways, and our Mars bars are something different. Or is it the other way around?
Of course, even when they're designed the same, they will taste different, because American chocolate is absolutely appalling.
Red Star
Mar 21 2008, 03:49 PM
QUOTE(barmyrob @ Mar 21 2008, 02:06 PM)

I had to pay 85p for a Mars bar the other day!
Youu've obviously too much money ... & were ripped off
Roo
Mar 21 2008, 05:07 PM
I think what we call Milky Ways are what you call Mars bars. We had Mars bars years ago, but they stopped making them. Not sure what our Mars Bars corresponded to.
aquaman
Mar 21 2008, 05:13 PM
This is a Mars Bar in this neck of the woods
Roo
Mar 21 2008, 05:19 PM
Mmmm. Glucose.
Yep, that's a Milky Way.
Tanya
Mar 21 2008, 05:22 PM
QUOTE(Roo @ Mar 21 2008, 06:07 PM)

I think what we call Milky Ways are what you call Mars bars. We had Mars bars years ago, but they stopped making them. Not sure what our Mars Bars corresponded to.
We've had this discussion at work (an office full of people from nearly every English-speaking country), so I knew that Wikipedia had the answer:
QUOTE
The Mars Bar is a chocolate bar manufactured by Mars Incorporated. It was first manufactured in Slough in the United Kingdom in 1932 as a sweeter version of the American Milky Way bar which Mars produced in the USA (not to be confused with the European version of the Milky Way, which is a different confectionery).
A different chocolate bar with the same name was sold in the USA until 2002 when its name was changed to Snickers Almond Bar. It contained then, and still does, plain nougat, almonds, caramel and milk chocolate.
Does that help?
ETA: I had the same response as Roo to the listing of glucose as an attractive ingredient.
Roo
Mar 21 2008, 05:44 PM
The Snickers Almond is quite tasty, but I think the Mars Bars of my youth had the almonds arranged in a straight line along the top, whereas the Snickers ones are haphazardly mixed into in the top layer.
Joe
Mar 21 2008, 06:04 PM
Hey, can we get back on topic? I believe we were talking about crisps, not chocolate.
Oh, but speaking of Topics... hazelnuts are a much more sensible addition to chocolate than almonds or peanuts.
nevski
Mar 21 2008, 07:18 PM
You have chosen to ignore all posts from: confectionary products.
barmyrob
Mar 21 2008, 10:27 PM
QUOTE(Red Star @ Mar 21 2008, 03:49 PM)

QUOTE(barmyrob @ Mar 21 2008, 02:06 PM)

I had to pay 85p for a Mars bar the other day!
Youu've obviously too much money ... & were ripped off
Don't ever feel peckish on the A23.
Jon
Mar 22 2008, 08:12 AM
QUOTE(barmyrob @ Mar 20 2008, 04:18 PM)

QUOTE(Jon @ Mar 20 2008, 03:49 PM)

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: jon.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.