An American President Finally Realizes that the Cold War is

Joat42 wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:

Nope.

https://globalsecurityreview.com/will-g ... look-like/

Hey, I got a link too:
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/sep/02/economic-forecasting-flawed-science-data

Any forcasting is subject to the potential error of mindlessly extrapolating current trends to far into the future. Predictions of population growth are a classic example. Some of us remember The Club of Rome 's doomsday predictions. The UN population projections are constantly revised downward. Birth rates in Iran and other muslim countries have imploded in the 21st century. Africa and South America are only one tropical disease pandemic away from a population implosion.

Factor in the obvious risks of social unrest, civil war or regional war and the futures of the E-7 or BRICS become very uncertain. South Africa's threatened farm confiscations could cause an economic implosion.

Of course President Trump is now in a trade war with China that is intended to constrain China's economic growth and thus potential military power.

Projections of Europe's population and economic future are also subject to uncertainty. Unlikely that you folks will start procreatibg rather than fornicating. Very unlikely that continued immigration will not result in civil unrest.
They might even restart the gas chambers. .

All of this uncertainty acknowledged, it is no longer in America's best interest to continue its role as global cop. Rather than rushing off to rescue dansels in distress by slaying their dragons, Americans need to learn how to witness massive carnage in foreign lands with equalmity.

I'm stocking up on pop corn.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:

Any forcasting is subject to the potential error of mindlessly extrapolating current trends to far into the future.

And yet you just cited a source doing exactly that to try to argue your point...

gcomeau wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:

Any forcasting is subject to the potential error of mindlessly extrapolating current trends to far into the future.

And yet you just cited a source doing exactly that to try to argue your point...

Well, it's kind of fun seeing him refuting his own post without realizing it.

That's really funny because I, Gcomeau, TheE, and others have done the exact same thing. The real irony is that when somebody speculates that the opposing viewpoint want only facts. So folks where all guilty of doing that exact thing that some are deriding others about.

gcomeau wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:

Any forcasting is subject to the potential error of mindlessly extrapolating current trends to far into the future.

Joat42 says:
And yet you just cited a source doing exactly that to try to argue your point...
Well, it's kind of fun seeing him refuting his own post without realizing it.

smr wrote:That's really funny because I, Gcomeau, TheE, and others have done the exact same thing. The real irony is that when somebody speculates that the opposing viewpoint want only facts. So folks where all guilty of doing that exact thing that some are deriding others about.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:

Any forcasting is subject to the potential error of mindlessly extrapolating current trends to far into the future.

Time for the latest episode in the hit game show "Can smr how his work?"

Show me where I have based an argument off of "mindlessly extrapolating current trends too far into the future".

gcomeau wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:

Any forcasting is subject to the potential error of mindlessly extrapolating current trends to far into the future.

And yet you just cited a source doing exactly that to try to argue your point...

I am simply acknowledging the caveats. Who would have thought that China might rival the US economically when Nixon opened relations.

My point is that while acknowledging uncertainty about the forcasts, almost every economic forcast indicates that Europe is becoming economically as well as militarily and strategically irrellevant.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:My point is that while acknowledging uncertainty about the forcasts, almost every economic forcast indicates that Europe is becoming economically as well as militarily and strategically irrellevant.

Then you're reading things wrong. Most forecasts I see predict that emerging countries will get richer over time, not necessarily that countries that are already rich will become poor.

(Unless, of course, you're like the current US president and thus unable to think of international economics in anything except zero-sum terms, where being less rich by comparison somehow equates to being less rich in absolute terms)

That's not to say that the removal of easily exploitable sources of labour isn't going to be an issue for rich countries. But then, we all know that capitalism doesn't actually work for people who are not capitalists, right?

Most of the forcasts predict that European countries will not become poor on a GDP per capita basis. However; as their populations shrink and become much older, the total GDP will stagnate or decline. Larger cohorts of elderly will consume a greater share of GDP limiting resources available for investment.


https://www.populationpyramid.net/germany/2005/


Germany has been attempting to import people to compensate for the extreme infertility. Perception from the US is that this is not working out very well for you.

Perhaps Germany needs to be invaded by the US so that American troops can once again sire a generation of Germans?

The E wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:My point is that while acknowledging uncertainty about the forcasts, almost every economic forcast indicates that Europe is becoming economically as well as militarily and strategically irrellevant.

Then you're reading things wrong. Most forecasts I see predict that emerging countries will get richer over time, not necessarily that countries that are already rich will become poor.

(Unless, of course, you're like the current US president and thus unable to think of international economics in anything except zero-sum terms, where being less rich by comparison somehow equates to being less rich in absolute terms)

That's not to say that the removal of easily exploitable sources of labour isn't going to be an issue for rich countries. But then, we all know that capitalism doesn't actually work for people who are not capitalists, right?

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Most of the forcasts predict that European countries will not become poor on a GDP per capita basis. However; as their populations shrink and become much older, the total GDP will stagnate or decline. Larger cohorts of elderly will consume a greater share of GDP limiting resources available for investment.

I agree with you that moving towards more socialism is necessary to deal with the aging population.

Germany has been attempting to import people to compensate for the extreme infertility. Perception from the US is that this is not working out very well for you.

I know a bunch of actual neonazis who would agree with that.

Luckily, they're all idiots.

Interesting comment there Fly, in that you are stating that American troops are genetically superior to middle eastern refugees? Last time that sort of belief prevailed it didn't end well.