The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

nope. rover is younger and much better looking!

Huh. I figured Rover for one of those aging 60s dudes with stringly gray hair.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

My nephew, in fact 2 of my nephews are in the military, told me once that the funding is gone if they don't spend it, even if they don't need it. This kind of wasteful spending adds up. That aside, how long can we be the world policemen? Our defense spending is killing us and not many other countries are willing to spend to help police the world. Why should they? They have the US to do this and we seem to be willing to spend the money even if it hurts us economically when the cold war is gone and we don't have a full blown war going. Why not stand down a bit? Do we need all those carrier task forces and new hardware like the next generation hardware? We can keep the structure in place and even put back the draft if we need to if there is manpower need and a new world crises, like another world war. We can still train pilots, tank drivers, etc. but maybe have a system like Israel. Everyone is available and no exemptions unless you have medical problems or some other problem that restricts you from serving.

Every unit has a TDY ("temporary duty") account. And the pressure to spend rather than save the money is predicated on the idea that in the next fiscal year the amount allocated will be cut if you didnt spend what we gave you last year. Although it's silly, the amouint of money involved in overall defense spending is barely noticable.

Absolutely the last thing we need is a draft. I really, truly wish anti-military types would make up their d*mn minds on this one. We had a draft. And the lefty anti-war types went absolutely apesh*t about it (possibly because they might wind up with their noses in the dirt at Ft. Leonard Wood or facing Charlie in a ride paddy). General Hershey, who headed Selective Service, was as hated a figure as there was (at least on college campuses) there were several mocking posters of Hershey that decorated dorm rooms from coast to coast.

Why a future president of the United States vigorously dodged the draft, by telling the ROTC commander at the University of Arkansas of his intention to go to law school there and join ROTC. Based on that assurance, Col. Holmes saw to it this future president got his 2-S deferrment. Subsequently, when this future president's lottery number was high enough to insure he would never be drafted, his plans changed. He didn't join ROTC and didn't attend the Arkansas law school But he did write a pompous Kepleresque letter to Colonel Holmes thanking him for "saving me from the draft."

We have zero need for a draft. And the military has zero desire for it to be reinstated. And comparisons with Israel fall somewhere between ignorant and moronic. Israel is a regional military power, while the United States is a global power. Their mission and ours are overwhelmingly different. Besides, why not emulate Andorra? Pete Seeger used to sing a song about Andorra spending $4.90 "on armaments for their defense, did you ever hear of such confidence, Andorra hip hoorah?"

All of these "experts" on the military are apparantly unaware that draftees were generally used for skut details, KP, picking up butts outside of Base Ops, etc. Because, as draftees, they had very low retainability and were going to leave after their time was up. So why waste the money and time training people who weren't going to stick around? The pay scales even reflected it. In terms of percentage, the largest pay raise anyone would ever get was when he went "over two." Regardless of his rank, a guy's pay would nearly double when his Time In Service exceeded two years, the term of service for draftees. Nowdays, most of these functions are performed by civilians, because we need the GI's to be doing something else.

Besides, reinstating the draft, or some sort of Israeli ready reserve model would be enormously expensive. You don't figure we'd just give these people M-16s and point them in the direction of the bad guys, do you? And modern combat is a shade different than it was in say, Vietnam. The weapons are light years more sophisticated. And it takes training to learn how to employ them. And training takes money. And non coms. And bases. And chow halls. Most of which we no longer have. Now, if you want to talk mandatory national service, of which one option would be the military, I could go for that. Sam Nunn offered such a plan. For young people facing mandatory service (including women, of course) there could be incentives for choosing the military instead of working in retirement homes or national parks or on infrastructure projects. This, too, would be enormously expensive, because these people would have to be trained, paid, clothed, fed, housed, transported and have their health needs provided for. But it's worth discusing, I think.

Worries about another "world war" also fall on that continuum between ignorant and moronic. There won't be another world war, at least not like the first two. Where millions of men are drawn into the military, trained, shipped off somewhere and eventually engage an enemy. That thinking is about 60 years out of date. We have developed weapons of unbelievable destructive power and accuracy. We have ballistic missile submarines on duty 24/7 and they carry Trident missiles with advanced, highly accurate, MIRVed warheads. Just one of those boats can shower an enemy with nearly 200 warheads. Do you suppose that capability might have something to do with North Korea being mostly talk? If they wanted to commit national suicide, nuking someone would be the quickest way to assure it.

While it is certainly true that many nations are protected by the military umbrella we provide, that protection also benefits us as well. Stable markets, economies, trading partners, access to the sea, etc. None of which would be true if we dismantled our military and all those nasty carrier battle groups and waited for the opportunity to become the "arsenal of democracy" once again. Honestly, some folks should be forbidden from watching "The World at War."

We are currently developing a capability called Prompt Global Strike, which would give a future POTUS the ability to strike any target, anywhere on the planet, with a non-nuclear device within an hour. Faster, please. We have recently announced that the MOP, a 30,000 pound penetrator of enormous destructive potential, has gone operational. Nobody is quite certain whether this device can obliterate Iran's underground nuclear facilities. But they can't be quite certain that it won't. Since they'll be carried by B2s and are "smart," if the first one doesn't do the job, we can lob a second one right behind it. I wouldn't want to be in the breakroom at Natanz when one of those bad boys hit.

Thank your nephews for all of us, won't you?

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

How would you "prove" it to the satisfaction of the ACLU? The people really in the know about voter fraud are the ones engaging in it. Recent reports show hundreds of felons who were not eligible to vote, did so and almost certainly gave the bulk of their votes to the "comedian."

Apparently voter fraud (as opposed to election fraud) is so hard to prove that we're absolutely sure it's rampant enough to change our laws and even more sure it will prevent more fraudulent votes than those it will disenfranchise.

That said I am not against the concept of voter IDs if we can in fact prove it's an affront to legitimate election results.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Apparently voter fraud (as opposed to election fraud) is so hard to prove that we're absolutely sure it's rampant enough to change our laws and even more sure it will prevent more fraudulent votes than those it will disenfranchise.

That said I am not against the concept of voter IDs if we can in fact prove it's an affront to legitimate election results.

I'm prepared to pay a price to increase the integrity of our elections. And 74% in the WAPO poll agree. Showing an ID in order to vote is not a huge imposition, it's not a "poll tax" or any of the other hysterical language being used by Democrats. "Disinfranchise" is another emotional term which simply does not apply here. Most states are providing the ID cards free of charge. Democrats are scared sh*tless that the tsunami of votes they customarily turn out every election might not be as big as it used to be, if "voters" are required to identify themselves. Democrats are huge hypocrites on this one. And they're engaged in their usual tactics of waving the bloody shirt of Birmingham or Selma or some other civil rights horror to change the subject.

The arguments adduced here prove the point: knock down one objection to ID laws and another pops up. We change our laws all the time, what's the big deal about that? The vast majority of voters (black, white, young, old, rich, poor) are apparantly okay with being asked to show ID before they vote. It's only Democrat pols and fellow travelers who aren't okay with it. I wonder why?

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

I've always suspected that Rover actually is Harry Reid.

Which makes you Sarah Palin.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

It's only Democrat pols and fellow travelers who aren't okay with it. I wonder why?

Because they are on average less affluent and perhaps less certain to already have an ID? Again I'm not saying voter ID is a bad idea, but are we certain voter fraud is significant enough to tarnish election results and in fact will prevent more illegitimate votes than legitimate? I guess what I'm getting at is it really so ludicrous to suggest that we'd be creating a bigger problem than we've solved?

Step aside from the, "libtards are scum" mindset long enough to ignore the rhetoric and explore the possibility that there may actually be legitimate and logical opposition rather than nefarious ulterior motives. Why is that always so hard to believe on either side of the spectrum?

 

[manurespreader]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Every unit has a TDY ("temporary duty") account. And the pressure to spend rather than save the money is predicated on the idea that in the next fiscal year the amount allocated will be cut if you didnt spend what we gave you last year. Although it's silly, the amouint of money involved in overall defense spending is barely noticable.


Why a future president of the United States vigorously dodged the draft, by telling the ROTC commander at the University of Arkansas of his intention to go to law school there and join ROTC. Based on that assurance, Col. Holmes saw to it this future president got his 2-S deferrment. Subsequently, when this future president's lottery number was high enough to insure he would never be drafted, his plans changed. He didn't join ROTC and didn't attend the Arkansas law school But he did write a pompous Kepleresque letter to Colonel Holmes thanking him for "saving me from the draft."







Worries about another "world war" also fall on that continuum between ignorant and moronic. There won't be another world war, at least not like the first two. Where millions of men are drawn into the military, trained, shipped off somewhere and eventually engage an enemy. That thinking is about 60 years out of date. We have developed weapons of unbelievable destructive power and accuracy. We have ballistic missile submarines on duty 24/7 and they carry Trident missiles with advanced, highly accurate, MIRVed warheads. Just one of those boats can shower an enemy with nearly 200 warheads. Do you suppose that capability might have something to do with North Korea being mostly talk? If they wanted to commit national suicide, nuking someone would be the quickest way to assure it.



While it is certainly true that many nations are protected by the military umbrella we provide, that protection also benefits us as well. Stable markets, economies, trading partners, access to the sea, etc. None of which would be true if we dismantled our military and all those nasty carrier battle groups and waited for the opportunity to become the "arsenal of democracy" once again. Honestly, some folks should be forbidden from watching "The World at War."



Thank your nephews for all of us, won't you?

A couple of points there op.
1. look up zero based budgeting. that's the explanation for the way the budgets are done. it's been in use for some time. at the unit level it sometimes happens that they have to spend the money at the last minute which is because of poor planning by the CO. But he'd rather end the year with s slight surplus than run out of funds 2 weeks before the year is over.

2. you forgot to mention that one recent president went awol from his ANG unit and was never punished. maybe because he wasn't a democrat.

3.Saying there will not be another world war is slightly disingenuous. there might be, but if there is it will be fought in space, so it will look very different. The results might not be welcome in the west though. You ought to read more.

4. we spend more than the next 15 nations in line behind us, combined, on defense. We could use a cut and without it we will never address our budgetary issues. rightly or wrongly.

have a nice day.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Here's a thought.

Once in awhile, especially at family gatherings, we engage in an exercise which I call "at what level do we agree?"

Sometimes I have to do it covertly.....like if there are Red Sox and Yankee fans in attendance, who, after becoming well-lubricated, start to "debate" the relative "merits" of each team. I'll ask them to recall their favorite baseball moments from the perspective of "my team" without naming it, and as long as it's not F^cky Bucking Dent, they can peacably co-exist for a few minutes...."I remember when my team..." "wow, that must have been great! I remember when my team...." "yeah, cool man!"

Similarly, if we were temporarily to suspend our "conversation" about who would make the better President, and ask "what is the most pressing problem we face today?", my guess is that we'd have a pretty broad consensus (e.g., three standard deviations) that it is anemic economic growth. If we had an economy growing at a faster rate than it is now, we'd all be better off, and most of the problems we are struggling with would be more solvable than they are now. Three standard deviations = 99% of us agree.

That would mean we temporarily suspend "who's to blame" or "what do we do next?".

Temporarily, I'd suggest that we mostly would concur. Any particular issue or problem I'm concerned about (except maybe foreign terrorism or Iran getting the A-bomb) would be less serious if we did in fact have more economic growth than we do now.

Then we move toward two standard deviations: without yet getting into policy prescriptions on how to achieve it, what conditions would need to exist for better economic growth to occur?


I'd like to hear others' views....preliminarily, I'd suggest: predictability in regulation and tax policy. Set aside what the rates "should be," to have a rending bitter feud every two years really puts a drag on growth. Stable, temporally consistent tax policy would help growth by removing uncertainty; co-ordinated regulation among all agencies would help more compared to seven regulatory agencies each operating without any regard to what the other six are doing.

In other words, if we set aside specific content, 95% of us agree that policies that remain stable over time promote growth better than policies that are subject to change every two years.

For now I'd like to stop at this level briefly, if others will consent to "play along with me." If y'all are game, then we can move to one standard deviation, where about 2/3 of us agree, before we get back to business as usual, which is arguing about the median.

Thanks!

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

A couple of points there op.
1. look up zero based budgeting. that's the explanation for the way the budgets are done. it's been in use for some time. at the unit level it sometimes happens that they have to spend the money at the last minute which is because of poor planning by the CO. But he'd rather end the year with s slight surplus than run out of funds 2 weeks before the year is over.

2. you forgot to mention that one recent president went awol from his ANG unit and was never punished. maybe because he wasn't a democrat.

3.Saying there will not be another world war is slightly disingenuous. there might be, but if there is it will be fought in space, so it will look very different. The results might not be welcome in the west though. You ought to read more.

4. we spend more than the next 15 nations in line behind us, combined, on defense. We could use a cut and without it we will never address our budgetary issues. rightly or wrongly.

have a nice day.

Your hebephrenic efforts to compare W's experiences in the ANG and Clinton's strenuous efforts to avoid serving are comical. Especially the parrt about W not being punished "because he was a Republican." At the time of his alleged "crimes" the WH and both houses of Congress were controlled by Democrats. As was the Governor's mansion in Austin and both houses ot the Texas legislature. No charges were brought because no crime was committed. Nobody gives a sh*t about your childish efforts to establish some sort of moral equivalency between a certified draft dodger and a guy who flew single seat pursuit fighters. Like Dan Rather said: the documents may be forged, but they're true. Right?. Whatever the facts of Bush's service were, they do not justify Clinton's draft dodging and lying.

The brilliance of your arguments has me a bit confused. In one breath you suggest I need to catch up because there's an outer space "world war" on the horizon, the outcome of which the west "might not welcome." Yet, in the next breath you're arguing about the need to cut defense. Facing this looming outerspace cataclysm, shouldn't we ramp up our spending? I WOULD read more about military matters, but my subscription to Popular Mechanics ran out.

 

[XYZ]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

For now I'd like to stop at this level briefly, if others will consent to "play along with me." If y'all are game, then we can move to one standard deviation, where about 2/3 of us agree, before we get back to business as usual, which is arguing about the median.

Thanks!

This was already done here re deficit reduction and debt elimination. Nearly everyone, including me, was solidly content with what Priceless came up with -- a borderline miracle, really. Since that's all settled now, and I'm game, what problem should we solve next?

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

He was a candidate in 2008. I'd be really surprised if there were anything illegal. Besides, what do you think the chances are that he's been audited? [Edit: most] Capital gains and dividends are taxed at 15% and he lives off of investment income. There's nothing odd or unusual about a 13% tax rate given his level of charitable deductions.

The problem is not with Romney's taxes, the problem is with US income tax law.

Agreed...there are some here who think that Romney is criminal or at least unethical. Not me, it makes logical sense to take advantage of opportunity.

I have no problem seeing top execs with 300,000 salaries get taxed at a moderate level. They earn it...you always want to reward those who provide your organization value.

Even as an investor, I do however have a problem with our low LT capital gains tax. I don't think Romney or whoever should coast taxed at 15% of earnings on his money while those working overtime flipping burgers pay more. This is where alot of govt revenue is left on the table as nobody is going to put their money under the matress if LT capital gain tax rates are raised.

And the crux of the issue is not that Romney is to be blamed for his behavior...but rather kept out of office. Because as you say US tax law is the problem and LT capital gain tax (and precious govt revenue) under Romney have the risk of getting wiped out.

 

[joecct]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Agreed...there are some here who think that Romney is criminal or at least unethical. Not me, it makes logical sense to take advantage of opportunity.

I have no problem seeing top execs with 300,000 salaries get taxed at a moderate level. They earn it...you always want to reward those who provide your organization value.

Even as an investor, I do however have a problem with our low LT capital gains tax. I don't think Romney or whoever should coast taxed 15% of earnings on his money while those working overtime flipping burders pay more. This is where alot of govt revenue is left on the table as nobody is going to put their money under the matress if LT capital gain tax rates are raised.

And the crux of the issue is not that Romney is to be blamed for his behavior...but rather kept out of office. Because as you say US tax law is the problem and LT capital gain tax (and precious govt revenue) under Romney have the risk of getting wiped out.

You don't know that. It will never pass the stink test.

How about this -- national sales tax except on food, clothing, and shelter in place of the income tax.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

You don't know that. It will never pass the stink test.

I assume your saying that folks would put money under the matress if LT cap gains taxes went up.

So joecct has a $1 million gaining 10% per year and is now concerned about the 25% LTCG tax (up from 15%) on your 100k that you'll earn this year. So therefore he decides to put his million in a cookie jar. Wait...I have an idea...simply give it to the major. You may not want the free money...but I will happily take the 75k (rather than what would have been 85k) that would have been yours this year and you'll still have your million when we're done. I guess I'd rather be in my shoes as I'll make a ton of money sitting on my duff.

I don't think so.

 

[joecct]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

I assume your saying that folks would put money under the matress if LT cap gains taxes went up.

So joecct has a $1 million gaining 10% per year and is now concerned about the 25% LTCG tax (up from 15%) on your 100k that you'll earn this year. So therefore he decides to put his million in a cookie jar. Wait...I have an idea...simply give it to the major. You may not want the free money...but I will happily take the 75k (rather than what would have been 85k) that would have been yours this year and you'll still have your million when we're done. I guess I'd rather be in my shoes as I'll make a ton of money sitting on my duff.

I don't think so.

No - I was responding to your last sentence. I said any attempt to lower the LTCG rate to 0 will never happen as the public will never allow it.

The Tax Code is so screwed up that we employ more tax professionals than we do cops and professional firefighters. Something is amiss when that happens. I am all in favor of a simpler tax code that gets more taxable income in play.

So, what do you think of a national sales tax with the exceptions outlined instead of an income tax??

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

No - I was responding to your last sentence. I said any attempt to lower the LTCG rate to 0 will never happen as the public will never allow it.

The Tax Code is so screwed up that we employ more tax professionals than we do cops and professional firefighters. Something is amiss when that happens. I am all in favor of a simpler tax code that gets more taxable income in play.

So, what do you think of a national sales tax with the exceptions outlined instead of an income tax??

Dang...end of dream state.

Well first, I think that has as much of a chance of happening as a big change to the cap gains tax.

Regarding the idea, I'm not so sure. The biggest scenario where it could be a problem is in a family of 4+ that is doing the right thing by working hard...but needs to dip into credit cards periodically to make it through. A sales tax could really penalize them in a crunch. Also, I don't know that the big change/costs to get to a sales tax would really result significant benefits. There is downside risk that it might discourage spending, which we might regret if for some reason we slip into a recession.

 

[joecct]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Dang...end of dream state.

Well first, I think that has as much of a chance of happening as a big change to the cap gains tax.

Regarding the idea, I'm not so sure. The biggest scenario where it could be a problem is in a family of 4+ that is doing the right thing by working hard...but needs to dip into credit cards periodically to make it through. A sales tax could really penalize them in a crunch. Also, I don't know that the big change/costs to get to a sales tax would really result significant benefits. There is downside risk that it might discourage spending, which we might regret if for some reason we slip into a recession.

But with no federal income tax taken out of the paycheck, then they have more in pocket money to spend. And all that income currently exempt from taxation suddenly comes into play when it gets spent. Granted things may cost 20 - 25% more with the national sales tax, but where we would pay tax on a Taurus, the riche would pay a lot more tax on a Ferrari Testosterone.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

But with no federal income tax taken out of the paycheck, then they have more in pocket money to spend. And all that income currently exempt from taxation suddenly comes into play when it gets spent. Granted things may cost 20 - 25% more with the national sales tax, but where we would pay tax on a Taurus, the riche would pay a lot more tax on a Ferrari Testosterone.

True.

The thing that keeps nagging at me is incentives. It may not seem like a big deal. But if you make all your money in cash. There may be just a little bit of an incentive to not buy that big screen...vs. someone might not think twice about it from that perspective if they already paid. It may seem subtle...but if that decision is second guessed every once in awhile 10s of millions of times a day, it might add up. Year one it might be an issue esp as folks are happy April 15...but then get overwhelming sticker shock for the first time on December 15. I just don't know about the psychology.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Because they are on average less affluent and perhaps less certain to already have an ID? Again I'm not saying voter ID is a bad idea, but are we certain voter fraud is significant enough to tarnish election results and in fact will prevent more illegitimate votes than legitimate? I guess what I'm getting at is it really so ludicrous to suggest that we'd be creating a bigger problem than we've solved?

Step aside from the, "libtards are scum" mindset long enough to ignore the rhetoric and explore the possibility that there may actually be legitimate and logical opposition rather than nefarious ulterior motives. Why is that always so hard to believe on either side of the spectrum?

I came by my cynicism the old fashioned way: I grew up in Chicagoland during the Daley I regime.
Please explain how asking voters to provide identification "tarnishes election results." You're talking like a pettifogging lawyer, asking to measure the unmeasurable. It's similar to demanding some measurement of the deterrence effect of the death penalty: how do you quantify murders not committed? How do you quantify illegal voters who stay home? When the opposition to voter ID comes exclusively from Democrats, particularly big city Democrats, who have for decades been able to do pretty much whatever they wanted in those inner city precincts, I get very suspicious. And their altruistic rhetoric rings hollow.

In his book "Clout," Chicago TV commentator Len O'Connor referred to the "automatic 11." 11 wards which always returned enormous margins for Mayor Daley. Before the polls closed. Before any ballot was "counted," Mayor Daley always had about a 200,000 vote edge. These were wards represented in Congress by Ralph Metcalf (who took the silver medal behind Jesse Owens in the 100 meters in Berlin.) This was a neat, tidy relationship which guaranteed that Mother Theresa couldn't have won.

Ward healers were on the streets all day long, passing out two dollar bills to derelicts to "encourage" them to vote. Certainly nobody was ever rude enough to ask any of these "voters" to identify themselves. And most of the Republican poll watchers had been denied access to the precincts, so there was nobody to watch. And the Board of Election Commissioners made sure no nosy parker ever got a chance to learn how many "voters" were registered at Wrigley Field, because those "public" records could never, ever be consulted or accessed. No banana republic dictator had a better deal than Mayor Daley. He was the first person JFK invited to spend a night in the Lincoln bedroom after he was sworn in. Kennedy knew who had put him in the White House.

It's possible that asking for identification won't eliminate voter fraud. It's possible there's not nearly as much voter fraud as I suspect. So what we'd still have is a minor requirement for voters to prove who they are before they're handed a ballot. Tell me again about "poll taxes" and "disinfranchisement." Just show your ID card (which we will provide at no cost if you can't afford it, which will be useful to you in other situations besides voting) and you're free to vote. And nearly 75% in the WAPO poll agree with that.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

I'm curious where this statement comes from. With very tiny knowledge, I had the opposite impression that they had lost a lot of influence and respect globally due to inability to stop genocide, or stop nuclear weapons programs, or even provide security in Haiti, etc. Was I wrong?

So I saw a case in point of how perceptions in the US are often off.

So as a question: What do Americans think of when they think of SE Asia? Probably poor peasants working in rice paddies?

Well its not exactly that today...and will be even less that in the future. They're rich.

Most of the world largely doesn't care about international political issues that are daily headlines here (although human catastrophies do make its radar)...its too busy conducting business. And all the Asian countries listed here live in a growing rich China's shadow and welcome the UN as an outlet for dialog and globabl problem solving:

World rich list shows emerging Asian Century

By 2050, the Wealth Report estimates the world's wealthy citizens will be dominated by Asia: Singapore ($137,710), Hong Kong ($116,639), Taiwan ($114,093) and South Korea ($107,752). The only western economy projected to remain in the top five is the U.S., with an estimated per capita income of $100,802.

Danny Quah of the London School of Economics predicts that by 2050, the world's economic center of gravity will be somewhere between India and China, the report notes. In 1980, the global economic center lay in the middle of the Atlantic.

Some of the world's super-rich have already crossed the Pacific. Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin, a native of Brazil, moved to Singapore in 2009 has since renounced his U.S. citizenship. Jim Rogers, the co-founder of the Quantum Fund with George Soros, also moved to the former British colony in 2007.

"The largest creditor nations in the world are China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore. The assets are in Asia. You know who the debtors are and where they are. Look at Greece. Look at Spain. I mean, I don't like saying this. You know, I'm an American, too. But facts are facts."

The report's list of fastest growing economies between 2010 and 2050 also gives more credence that the world's wealth is moving toward Asia. Of the top 10 fastest rising economies -- Nigeria, India, Iraq, Bangladesh, Vietnam, the Philippines, Mongolia, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Egypt, respectively -- all but three are in the region.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

So I saw a case in point of how perceptions in the US are often off.

So as a question: What do Americans think of when they think of SE Asia? Probably poor peasants working in rice paddies?

Well its not exactly that today...and will be even less that in the future. They're rich.

Most of the world largely doesn't care about international political issues that are daily headlines here (although human catastrophies do make its radar)...its too busy conducting business. And all the Asian countries listed here live in a growing rich China's shadow and welcome the UN as an outlet for dialog and globabl problem solving:

World rich list shows emerging Asian Century

By 2050, the Wealth Report estimates the world's wealthy citizens will be dominated by Asia: Singapore ($137,710), Hong Kong ($116,639), Taiwan ($114,093) and South Korea ($107,752). The only western economy projected to remain in the top five is the U.S., with an estimated per capita income of $100,802.

Danny Quah of the London School of Economics predicts that by 2050, the world's economic center of gravity will be somewhere between India and China, the report notes. In 1980, the global economic center lay in the middle of the Atlantic.

Some of the world's super-rich have already crossed the Pacific. Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin, a native of Brazil, moved to Singapore in 2009 has since renounced his U.S. citizenship. Jim Rogers, the co-founder of the Quantum Fund with George Soros, also moved to the former British colony in 2007.

"The largest creditor nations in the world are China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore. The assets are in Asia. You know who the debtors are and where they are. Look at Greece. Look at Spain. I mean, I don't like saying this. You know, I'm an American, too. But facts are facts."

The report's list of fastest growing economies between 2010 and 2050 also gives more credence that the world's wealth is moving toward Asia. Of the top 10 fastest rising economies -- Nigeria, India, Iraq, Bangladesh, Vietnam, the Philippines, Mongolia, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Egypt, respectively -- all but three are in the region.

You and Kepler will doubtless be happy if and when this transpires. It surely is a shame more dumb Americans aren't nearly as smart as you two. BTW, you back to passing off other people's words as your own?