Disturbingly similar to the Shadowrun universe.

I don't know whether I should laugh at the lunacy of this article coming out of a country that just jacked up its defense budget during times of relative stability, or take heed of advice given by the country that mastered impractical spending.

Seems like an interesting, sexy article from an outsider's perspective, but it shows a pretty deep ignorance in regard to our domestic situation. Things aren't great, but we've been through worse, and nobody's asking me to sign a petition of secession when I walk to work.

Wow... that certainly is a prediction. The funny thing about predictions is that they predictions, not truth. People have predicted the world was going to end years/decades/centuries ago yet here we are still managing to mess everything up.

Also please refrain from using nothing but caps in a title. It is just like constantly yelling. No one needs it and no one enjoys it.

There was this thing in the 30s called the Great Depression. Compared to that, this little market correction is damn trivial.

Russia, not too long ago, endured the break up of the Soviet Union. This almost certainly colored the author's perspective. But there is far too much patriotic solidarity for nothing less than the Native Americans rising up and reclaiming their lands would result in such a breakup.

Yeah, I'm not at all convinced of the quality of the analysis of this "political expert." I'm unilaterally sentencing him to disemvoweling:

Am I the only one who saw this and expected it to be more spammers?

When humanity falls, squirrels shall inherit the earth.

It's true - just look around. The proof is everywhere.



Squirrels are the source of all evil

While I think it is unwise to consider what is coming down the pike as a paltry 'market correction' (you don't just make trillions of dollars out of thin air without serious consequences down the line)... I also think Russia is conducting an exercise in wishful thinking- and not predicting anything.

I see the US merging with Canada and Mexico long before a Shadowrunesque break up.

It never ceases to amaze me how foreign viewers consistently drastically overestimate the level of 'separatist' feelings within the modern US. I live in the hot-bed of what some might consider one of the most likely successionalist regions, that is Texas. And even here, a modern day succession is unspeakably unlikely.

Maybe its because ethnic and regional identities still play such a large part in the politics of many foreign nations. Which makes it hard for those observers to understand that at an ever increasing since the American Civil War, regionalisim has been on the decline and an 'American' national identity has been on the rise. Indeed, while some traces of regional identities still remain, ethnic and religious identities have been mostly eliminated (with some obvious exceptions), and where they remain, they have little to do with any sort of succesionalist feeling.

It's just a different concept I guess. I, like most Americans, would have a great deal of trouble seeing myself in the light of my (very muddled) ethnic identity. Which makes it hard for me to understand how the concept of being a Kurd, or Georgian, or Scotsman, or Tutsi, or any other ethnic identity could be more important than my national identity. The same generally goes for religious identities as well. But, I suppose they have trouble seeing my position as well.

That's the thing, the US is more unique compared to other countries in that we took in immigrants from elsewhere and integrate them into our society, much more so than other countries. Possibly a big thing is that in the beginning the country was so small and so frontier-ish, we didn't care as much of where you come from (generalization) and more of what you do (again, generalization).

Plus, we already hashed it out from the civil war and after that, I think no one wants to go through that ever again... Well most people.

Still, we have one more test for the end of the world, the end of the mayan calender. We make it through that, we may be okay for a bit longer.

right so who wants to place bets on the out come of a shadowrun agains this guy keeping the ppl in the know out of it >> oh wait this is America were more likely to nuke the middle east or Korea than split up.

The article made me pee my pants laughing. Well, almost. I held it in. And I'm wearing shorts.

where did you get this? pravda?

The Mayan calender does not predict the end of the world it predicts "catastrophic events." The downfall of the Mayans, the invasion of Cortez, these were not end of the world events but just events about Mexico getting boned hardcore. The Mayan calender does not give any type of prediction, just that something bad is going to happen, or something good is going to happen. Almost like a universal fortune cookie clock.

For America to break up Shadowrun style the majority of Americans not only have to lose faith in the system of government, but also be willing to revolt, and I just don't think that is going to happen in our lifetime. If you ask most Americans if the US will break up they will probably laugh in your face... or try and beat you up for not being a Patriot. America is an idea, and with that idea comes the idea of unity. Trying to insert the idea of the United states not being unified to most people in the US is like thinking that everyone will start communicating with sock puppets with various pictures of "smiley faces" instead of words. Even if people grumble about how stupid it all is most people want change to happen from the inside, not a total wipe of government and Shadowrun style breakups.

Russia is also not the US and when it changed many individual areas that never wanted to be under the USSR (or for that matter Russia,) because they had a completely different culture, or had been oppressed for decades and have wanted out for a very long time (a.k.a. had revolts suppressed for dozens of years.) Since the US killed off most of the Native Americans the identity of America lies in its culture not its people. Russia is just a wee bit different, and maybe one day America will fall into anarchy, but it is not just around the river bend.

so what youre saying is its better to kill and wipe out than enslave... sounds like a true runner to me . (note: I kid)

Not really.
If i wouldn't know that this guy is totally nuts, i'd be scared by the idea of Russia acting as a "regulator in Eurasia".



Not that squirrel theory of yours again.
Everybody knows it's bunnies we have to be afraid of.
Just consider all the carrots these pesky little rodents eat.
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway?



Izvestija, which, given the standing of independent media in Russia, comes quite close to that, yeah.
It's just reassuring people that Medvedev should go on monopolizing ressources, crushing freedom of speech and cause a ruckus over the US rocket shield in Eastern Europe.
Especially considering that he claims things such as "vulnerable political setup", "lack of unified national laws", and "divisions among the elite" as reasons for the crisis.
Oh, and the fact that that guy is employed by the Russian ministry of foreign affairs.

Then the US government would blow the shit out of Native Americans... or give them some cheap rotgut and let them drink themselves into a stupor. Sorry, it took the writers of Shadowrun breaking reality and then some to make the NAN.

You always have to see where a guy is coming from to know what motivates him, and this even applies to academics, such as professor Panarin. So, yeah, Izvestia, and a political climate where propaganda wins out over truth make anything this guy says suspect. The trick is to account for that suspicion and see if one can get anything useful from underneath the propaganda.

Trillions of dollars, folks. Even those of us who love you guys are worried for you, and for ourselves. There are think tanks in other countries that also argue the U.S. economy is a runaway train. The ones who could rein in the train are dealing with the issue with the same ideology that sent good young soldiers to faraway places over imaginary threats.

I wonder how long it took people going into the Great Depression to realize they were going into a Great Depression?

Peter

meh i dunno more like certain designer blankets imo. >> But yeah the PR for committing genocide in the US would be steep so it would likely come down to belief system rather than racial identity.

Wow, a Russian analyst predicts the breakdown of the US after American-Russian relations have been deteriorating for how long? This is not only poorly timed propaganda on the analyst's part, it proves how lazy Russian intelligence gatherers are.

If you look into a brief history of the cold war and intelligence agencies within Russia, some of their agents in the United States would send back small excerpts of the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Daily Podunk Shitrag (stolen, I know) or what have you, and call that their intelligence report. I know it sounds lazy to send clips of newspaper back to the Kremlin and call your work done, but the media was so controlled in the Soviet Union that the information contained in your average newspaper was sometimes very relevant to an intelligence organization in an authoritarian state.

This just seems like bad intel analysis on the part of the Russian analyst. It seems like a lighthearted attempt to rekindle old cold war flames by trying to rally the world around an anti American sentiment not a month after the U.S. elected a leader that the rest of world by and large approves of.

[quote name='Rasumichin' date='Nov 25 2008, 08:15 PM' post='750322'
Not that squirrel theory of yours again.
Everybody knows it's bunnies we have to be afraid of.
Just consider all the carrots these pesky little rodents eat.
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway?
[/quote]

The bunnies are just the snipers... The squirrels are the brains behind the operation. And the badgers... The badgers are the muscle.

On a serious note... I stopped reading after the first paragraph... I just felt dumb after reading that much.

Russia becoming a regulator in Eurasia?! Russia itself isn't what you could call regulated!

The EIU's predictions are still the best for me, even if as they concede, they don't take into account the various threats/unexpected events that could (and probably will) completely change the deal.

Yeah, the article had me going when the paragraph started with, "asked whom would become the next global regulator..." my mind instantly went, "hm, could it be Russia?"

Try saying that in your head like the Church Lady from SNL.

Guess I should pack my bags for a trip to the Free City of San Francisco or whatever. See you dudes after the apocalypse.

You'll pardon me if I take the statement of a political analyst from a country run by ex-KGB and organized criminals with a grain of salt.

I wholeheartedly agree that sources should be analyzed critically.

That having been said, are we to assume based on sentiments posted above that any statement that comes from a Russian is either a lie or just stupid?

Peter

One should never dismiss anything just because of the nationality of its author. However the mentioned "grain of salt" is appropriate in this case, the Soviet Union did break up, and Russia is in danger of doing so (armed revolt in some places, real session movements in others), which is bound to color the outlook of anyone living there.

America had its own internal crisis over a century ago, but was in many ways reforged by the Great Depression and winning World War II. Despite our remaining problems, most Americans see their American nationality as more important than where their ancestors happened to come from. From my travels I know this can be hard to understand for people from parts of the world where ethnic identity and conflict go back many many centuries.

When the Soviet government collapsed economically the various regions that had been controlled by force were happy to be independent again. If the American federal government did collapse economically the large majority in each region would want it fixed not independence.

Another important factor is that China was probably happy to see the Soviet collapse, whereas they are working to help prevent an American collapse (they need the customers). One could also argue that the Soviet economic system was fundamentally flawed, while the current American crisis is a relatively short-term failure in oversight of a system that generally works well in the long term.

Yeah, I don't think the author or many russians realize that most Europeans dislike them more than the Americans (something to do with the way the Soviet Union allied itself with Hitler to divide the soviet union and take over the Baltic States, and the Soviet-Finnish war of 1941. Note that I intentionally make a difference between Russia and the USSR (the USSR is an ideal, Russia is a country based on ethnicity). They are different countries. I also found it laughable that he said Russia leased Alaska to the US. No, we bought it from the Czar cause he needed to fund a war.

Also Russia strikes me as a somewhat paranoid country. After the Soviet break-up, they found their opponents at their borders, many of which had been part of Czrist russia for hundreds of years. But most of this was due to the fact that Russian troops were there, not any real kinship. The real issue is what will happen to the russsian populations in those countries in the long term. Will they move back to russia proper, integrate in the new country, revolt and seperate from the new country (at the backing of russia).

As to the US breaking apart. I don't see it happening. What I do see happening is a general decline in government service, a massive recall of American toops and a reduction in the military spending, and a possible declaration of government bankruptcy at some point. If that happens, China's government will more than likely collapse from the loss of a major market/investment.

@MJBurrage, we Canadians can fully understand your point about not being tied to ethnicity, but rather place, though Canada has been consciously developed as a mosaic, rather than a melting pot.

@Warlordtheft, the Russians have every right to be paranoid. In the previous two centuries no less than three attempts to conquer them came from Europe. So after the last one they built a buffer zone to keep the next fight in somebody else's back yard. That buffer zone is now gone, and in fact most of it is rushing headlong to join NATO and the EU, the ones who have done them over, three times.

It shouldn't be the case that the U.S. will break up. Hell, if Canada can keep together with its much stronger centrifugal tendencies, then you guys should have no problem. What could very well happen is that your world economic hegemony will falter and fade, the way so many empires have faded in the past. You are in debt up to your eyeballs, and going deeper as fast as you can. Nobody can maintain that kind of behaviour forever. Eventually, when that might happen depends in part on you, in part on your trading partners, the lenders will stop giving you more money.

As far as China needing the U.S., well maybe for now. But did you know that there are as many university educated adults in China as there are people (all ages, all education levels) in the U.S.? They are building their own economy that will replace the U.S. in the rest of the world's business view. You are a market of 300 million 'rich' people. They are pushing 1.5 billion, and getting richer by the minute. And that's not even taking into account India. China is developing a 20th century economy at breakneck speed. India is doing the same for the 21st century.

Asia will be the centre of the economic universe, and there is nothing the U.S., or the NAFTA parties, or the E.U. can do about it, except try to grab their coattails and go along for the ride. This is the way it was for Europe in the 19th century, and the way it was for the U.S. in the 20th. We've had our turn. This doesn't mean we (U.S. and Canada, so intricately linked economically and politically) will sink into Third World status, but it does mean someone else will be calling the shots.

So, back to countries breaking up...

What will happen when the Spanish speaking minorites in your southern states become majorities, because their birth rates are higher than the national average? Will there be new voices in charge? Will there be new directions taken? Canada has been dealing with the Two Solitudes of the French and the English for nigh on 400 years. It will all be very new to the U.S.

What will happen if the Midwest decides those flakes in the Blue States can go hang themselves? When was it, 1979, when Ayatollah Khomeini took over Iran from the Shah ( a puppet ruler for you-know-who)?

What will happen if the disenfranchised tens of millions who have no health care, no jobs and no hope see no New Deal on the horizon, 'cause you can't afford it? Teotihuacan, the greatest city in the Americas and one of the largest in the world in its time ( pinnacle around 700 - 750 A.D.) went from master of the universe to abandoned hulk, with burned temples, administrative palaces and elite/leaders quarters in a blink of an eye.

I'd be thinking about these things if I were an American.

Peter

Well said Peter.

Well said.

Sadly, as an American, I see many (if not most) of my fellow countrymen largely ignoring the implications of what their government (and 'king Paulson') are doing. Far too many are stuck in the two party trap and think- now that Obama is President Elect, everything will be fine.

Really, nothing could be further from the truth, and I am quite positive that the next twenty years will not be like the last.

In fact, it would not surprise me if America adopts many of the socialist structures that we opposed and even fought against just 25 years ago; and/or merges with Canada and Mexico similarly to the EU.

Then again, everyday chains are breaking and minds are waking. We still may react in time to abolish the Federal Reserve and take our country back from those who have repeatedly betrayed our trust and have worked solely for the betterment of themselves and their lobbied corporate masters.

Absolutely nothing.

In general, Americans who grow up in households where foreign languages are spoken are bilingual. It isn't like in Canada, where there is an entire French-speaking Province. There is no official language in this country, but English is the de-facto standard, to the point that it is difficult to accomplish anything if you can't speak it. All public schools have an English-based curriculum, with some larger school districts in immigrant-heavy areas having foreign language programs designed essentially to keep immigrant children from falling behind until they can learn English well enough to take regular classes.

I don;t get americans who think the Federal reserve is some instrument created to oppress them.

I did meet this one lass who lived in NYC's chinatown. Her english wasn't that great and my cantonese wasn't that great either. Ah well. The thing is, if you stick to the immigrant heavy areas, you could almost get by without speaking english. It's hard, but it really is doable. But yeah, for the most part if the kid is going to public schooling, for the most part it's in english with exceptions. Question is how much they'll learn english or refuse to and if they wish to go on to college.
If you are asking abou the spanish speaking minorities, for the most part they become part of the population. In the West, where there's alot of asians, there's a lot integration for the most part. Then again, Canada has Vancouver... I mean Hongcouver. Everyone there seemed to know their english and french.

Tell me, why should a country, any country, allow a private institution to print (and largely control) their money supply?

They shouldn't. When is why money is printed by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve System is a government agency, of sorts. While each of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks sells stock to private member banks, this stock does not give any of the member banks any actual power over the Reserve Banks, which operate as arms of the government.

Well that would be rather a bizarre choice.

But of course the reality is that Central banks are not private institutions, the federal reserve for example (or at least the part that controls the monetary supply), is chartered by Congress and can have that revoked at any time, has the only people with authority apointed by the President who serve at the whim of the President, and they can only print money against holdings of Special Treasury Securities which it buys from the Treasury department.

So not only is it an organization created and overseen by Congress, it serves at the whim of congress and the president, and can only engage in operations with the permission of the Treasury.

Wow, that seems like a privately run organization to me... wait a minute.

Interesting note, because I'm not going to convince this guy, my work filters (and I'm not American) classify sites that espose the fed siphons money off into the hands of rich banking executive sites as 'Militancy and Extremism'

LAWL.

You are incorrect. The Federal Reserve may sound like a government agency (with the name 'Federal' in its name) but it actually is completely a private institution- and it is the printer of our currency: The Federal Reserve Note. In a nutshell, 'money' is created from thin air two ways: the first is when the Treasury issues bonds (not stock) to which the Federal Reserve 'buys' by printing money at value.

The second way (or should I say, phase two) is even worse, because banks are only required to keep 1/10th of what they are supposed to hold. Which means when they get a $1,000 deposit, they can then loan $900 of that back out. The process creates roughly 9 new FRN's for every 1 created by the Federal Reserve.

Which, if I understand things correctly, is how the system can empower the nation's economy by lending out more money to industry, businesses, homeowners, etc. than it actually has. Everything works fine as long as A) everybody believes in the system and doesn't try to get all 100% of their money back, and B) the source keeps pumping more into the system. If either A) or B) ceases, the whole house of cards collapses.

Do I have this right?

Peter

I hate to be the one to break this too you, but ayn rand is dead the rest of the world has decided it is okay with fractional reserve banking.

Is that why the Federal Reserve printed 680 billion dollars in new money without Congressional approval while Congress was debating the initial 700 Billion bailout package? If you look, there have been trillions of new dollars not authorized by Congress created recently, including:



Think about it.

I think you need to think about it.

Last I checked all the new initiatives (like the consumer and commercial paper market interventions) have been funded by the US treasury which is a government department. Heck that article even says it (See that name in the previous sentence, Paulson?)

While your criticism may be valid about a lack of transparency, ultimately the authorization and money for this is from Treasury Secretary Paulson who serves at the whim of the president and is a government employee. Without treasury money it isn't possible for the Fed to do anything.

But don't let the facts get in the way of conspiracy theories or anything! I'm sure it's really the shadowy private owners of the fed behind it, rather than, you know, the people who openly say they are doing and have the authorization to do it.

Mostly. There is also C) If you create to much money you risk devaluing the existing moneys purchasing power.

Fiat money (which is what we are really using, fractional reserve banking refers to banks and government having something intrinsic-usually gold/silver- as a backing to the currency. FRN's have no backing save 'faith'; well, and oil sales being dominated in 'dollars', but that is a bit harder to explain.) has destroyed every country the same way. They create so much that they buying power becomes worthless.

The house of cards can fall sooner should people lose faith and pull their money from the banks at the same time. And the system forces new money to always be pumped, which always slowly devalues it (hence robs people of their savings by robbing it of its purchasing power), because it is a system of debt.

Thats not what fractional reserve banking means at all. Fractional reserve banking just allows banks to hold reserves equal to only a fraction of their deposit liabilities. I could get into a flame war about your total insanity about the insanity of it, but thats enough for me.

The Treasure is a government agency, it is a Constitutional one at that. However, it does not create money. It signed over that power in 1913 and now only issues bonds to the Federal Reserve- who prints the money. And, if you read that article, you will see that the Federal Reserve has taken it upon itself to create more then it was authorized by Congress (the ones who are supposed to regulate the money supple). In fact, they created 680 billion without Congressional Approval while Congress was still mulling over the 700 billion bailout bill.

I recommend broadening your history of banking before making 'conspiracy theory' accusations.

If you want to get nitpickey, the Federal Reserve System is a government institution controlled by a Board of Governors appointed by the President and Confirmed by the Senate. This system consists of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks and their many member banks. The Federal Reserve Banks are quasi-governmental semi-private institutions owned primarily by the government and operated by according to the rules as part of the Federal Reserve System but theoretically independent banks. Each is commanded by a Board of Directors, 1/3 of whom are appointed by the Board of Governors while the other 2/3s are elected by stockholders who run the Federal Reserve Banks according to rules, regulations, and commands of the Board of Governors. Then there are member banks, which own stock in the Federal Reserve Banks and which are private, but which individually have very little authority within the system.

The Board of Governors has wide latitude when making decisions; the entire point of the system is to be mostly independent, able to react quickly react to market demands and resistant to political pressure.

Sure, but the printing can only be done against a special class of treasury securities that can only be issued by the treasury at its sole discretion. The fed does nominally have the printing presses, but it needs 30 billion dollars of specially issued treasury securities before it is allowed to print 30 billion dollars of notes. As only the treasury can actually give it those securities, one party has the power here and it isn't the federal reserve.

Of course, I suppose they could commit a felony and fraudulently print currency, but thats what law enforcement is for. Otherwise the Fed requires the active approval of the Treasury department before it can print a dime.

Incidently the entire fed printing of money thing is a total furfy. The Government prints money every time it issues debt unless you think a treasury security is functionally different than a note backed with a different class of treasury security (Clue: Its not)

Permant open market operations are like 30-50 billion a year historically, whereas the government has been issuing 1 trillion dollars of securities to fund things like Iraq. The feds 50 billion of poermant open market operations is a total joke in that context.

Now you're going to ignore me, but that all adds up to one thing

The US Treasury Department is the sole source of US government liabilities (of which actual notes are just one class of liability)

Yes, we practice 'fractional reserve banking' in that we only require our banks to hold 1/10th of what they are supposed to. But our economic currency is fiat.

Historically speaking, money went through various steps. Carrying coins became cumbersome and 'receipt money' was adopted; from receipt money came 'fractional reserve money'- where banks realized that only so many people would come in at a time to redeem their script, finally fiat where the government removes anything of intrinsic value from the monetary equation. Then the next step is almost always taken: fiat.

It should be noted that in 1913; the Federal Reserve was sold as a 'receipt money' system- and it was even printed on the FRN's "This note is legal tender for all debts public and private, and is redeemable in lawful money at the United States Treasury, or at any Federal Reserve Bank."

Lawful money of the day was silver (and gold).

Once passed, fractional reserve banking came heavy into play, and intrinsic backing of paper money was all but gone 20 years later.

Sure, but thats not what you actually said. You said



Which is factually incorrect.

Also, you're assuming that fiat money is bad. This is what really gets me. A sizeable body of americans, including a presidential candiate who raised quite a lot of money, think that this is all designed to oppress the working man, whereas everyone else has just pretty much got on with it and doesn't care in the slightest.

Its really strange behavior.

Technically, it is supposed to be at Congress's sole discretion, not the Treasury.

They are the ones who have the Constitutional Authority to regulate the money supply, not the Treasury.

And, open you wallet and take out a bill. Notice at the top it says: Federal Reserve Note. The Federal Reserve prints the money, and if you look at the process on how- you would find it is rather sick. Sure, the Treasury starts the process by issuing and IOU in the form of a bond to which the Fed will take as an asset and then create their FRN's. But keep in mind, these bonds issued to the Federal Reserve are like other bonds (and securities), and accrue interest.

You should be taking all those billions and trillions together... the more a money supply swells, the less it can afford. The several trillion added in the last few months adds to this. Now, imagine what would happen if all those countries holding large sums of our debt- returned it.

Actually, one of the big advantages of the Federal Reserve System is that it can remove money from circulation of combat inflation in addition to adding money to prevent depression.

Both powers are rather crucial.

Fiat money has destroyed every nation who had ever adopted it. Including the early American Continentals.

And, it is bad.

Let me put this in perspective. If you took every dollar in circulation, every ledger, every bank account and offset it with all the debt- you would have no money. None. Zip, Zilch, Zero.

Now, add to the equation interest and you can see it is actually impossible for everyone to get ahead; there has to be losers. Worse, the system by its very nature robs people of their wealth and savings through inflation. For the system to work it must inject more money into the money supply, but more money means less purchasing power for existing dollars- which means your savings in ten years does not buy as much as it did today. The poor are of course affected by this more then the wealthy, and people wonder why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.