44th President and 111th Congress (US Gov't 2009-2011)

[LeoXiao]

Obama probably isn't going to be that awesome or anything like lots of people childishly expect, but at least I can have a little bit of hope for my home nation. Bush was just a retard. Obama is still tied down by the corrupt system we have, but at least he actually knows what he's doing compared to anyone in the GOP.

I'm just pissed that he's sill propping up the shitty system by keeping it on the 800-billion dollar life-support. If I were him I'd just let the old rotten structure collapse, teach all the people a lesson for letting America get into this mess, and start anew. It's not that anyone will starve to death or anything since we have all the food we could need.

[james0246]

In recent news, President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons.

President Obama will convene the most ambitious arms reduction talks with Russia for a generation, aiming to slash each country’s stockpile of nuclear weapons by 80 per cent.

The radical treaty would cut the number of nuclear warheads to 1,000 each, The Times has learnt. Key to the initiative is a review of the Bush Administration’s plan for a US missile defence shield in Eastern Europe, a project fiercely opposed by Moscow.

For those that do not remember, non-proliferation has been one of Obama's biggest campaign points/promises for almost his entire 2 year run. So, this is pretty big.

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

Obama probably isn't going to be that awesome or anything like lots of people childishly expect, but at least I can have a little bit of hope for my home nation. Bush was just a retard. Obama is still tied down by the corrupt system we have, but at least he actually knows what he's doing compared to anyone in the GOP.

I'm just pissed that he's sill propping up the shitty system by keeping it on the 800-billion dollar life-support. If I were him I'd just let the old rotten structure collapse, teach all the people a lesson for letting America get into this mess, and start anew. It's not that anyone will starve to death or anything since we have all the food we could need.

I do not want to see the US go entirely down the drain. The moment those Treasury bonds become worthless, we are advancing many steps towards the end of the world as we know it.

@james0246: I think Obama and his team would accept a Russian sphere of influence over some parts of Europe. Here's hoping that a deal could be concluded.

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

I for one do not want to see the US go entirely down the drain. The moment those Treasury bonds become worthless, we are advancing many steps towards the end of the world as we know it.

Good. Our world is corrupt and the entire globalized economic system is all about the slaves and slave-drivers. If it all collapses (which I see as inevitable) hopefully we can start anew and correct some of the fundamental mistakes, though it'll no doubt involve a fair amount of suffering.

The USA is too dependent on corporations and foreign investments (China basically owns us now lol), which is very embarrassing considering that we could be totally self-reliant (we have food and good land) and free from attack (we have a great military and two oceans to protect us), if only we didn't want to all live decadent, worthless lives and use cheap foreign products and resources procured from those in poverty. But now our greed has trapped us and we will have to learn a painful lesson for it.

[Claies]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

I'm just pissed that he's sill propping up the shitty system by keeping it on the 800-billion dollar life-support. If I were him I'd just let the old rotten structure collapse, teach all the people a lesson for letting America get into this mess, and start anew. It's not that anyone will starve to death or anything since we have all the food we could need.

Problems with sending the US system down the drain:
1) Everyone will trash Obama, since the people are dumb and will never realize that pumping in money doesn't help much.

2) If you want to renew, you better take out the entire system. Otherwise, we'll end up with even more dominance of the elite that survive.

3) Among the only industries left standing if this were to happen are those serving the military. We don't need more of their dominance. In fact, it'd creep me out if any of the companies that survive gain dominance, because those are mostly government-related.

4) A good deal of the world economy leans on America. If the US economy is allowed to die, even for the shortest time, the international market will suffer, and then immediately recenter itself around Europe and China (if not Russia and the Middle East, which don't like us). The US will take decades to get that focus back again, if ever.

5) People *will* starve to death, because in dire times nobody will share. Getting people to share is a social dilemma that will never prevail over personal greed. I'd expect massive street fighting over "all the food we could need."

What Obama really needs to get across is that America is seriously threatened as the most powerful nation on Earth and the American people need to stop assuming that they're undoubtedly the best.

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

Good. Our world is corrupt and the entire globalized economic system is all about the slaves and slave-drivers. If it all collapses (which I see as inevitable) hopefully we can start anew and correct some of the fundamental mistakes, though it'll no doubt involve a fair amount of suffering.

Correct. In fact, I measure all forms of political and socioeconomic change based on how many lives they cost. What you suggest would run up hundreds of thousands.

[Shadow Kira01]

Obama places national security ahead of the economy, which is a good thing because there is no point to have a stable economy if Americans are living in danger and fear. Just this recent 2-3 days, both Iran and North Korea has taken a rather aggressive stance unexpectedly.

North Korea had abolished all political and military agreements with South Korea which has possibly removed the few decades old ceasefire agreement. At the same time, South Korea had also showed signs of anger by burning North Korean flags, as well as signs featuring their leader Kim Jong Il along with the flags. North Korea has become a regional threat to both the national security of South Korea and Japan in which both are allies of the US, not mentioning that North Korea also has the long-ranged missile capability of harming American citizens living on the mainland of the United States.

Iran on the other hand has just announced an all-out support to the Hamas a day earlier and has the very intention of wiping Israel off the world map. On top of that, Iran has finally succeeded their very first satelight that enables the capability of long-ranged missiles carrying nuclear warheads with quite a radius of attack which deems to be a grave concern to the United States.

Most of all, both North Korea and Iran are currently considered as non-peace seeking nations by the United Nations, even though only Iran is sanctioned at the moment. Depending on what actions will North Korea take within the next few weeks, they might get sanctioned as well. Having these two serious national security issues in mind, Obama probably won't be able to come up with effective economy-saving strategies for the time being. He is not God.

[Cluelessly]

Originally Posted by Vexx

For example, a LOT of current corporate entity mental illness derives from when the government reduced capital gains taxes and the tax protocol on stock sales. Investors used to rewarded in the tax structure if they held stocks for a reasonable length of time (which encouraged stability, prudent investing, and reduced playing the stocks like it was a gambling casino). Removing that (I believe) led directly to the gross stupidity we see today (like companies being punished for being stable, reliable or being punished for making a bigger profit but not one that meets some jackass analyst's projection).

Problem is almost no company has been responsible. Leveraging isn't just speculation. Shorts aren't the ones to blame for what has happened. I think that's what you're trying to say anyway.

Originally Posted by Claies

Problems with sending the US system down the drain:
1) Everyone will trash Obama, since the people are dumb and will never realize that pumping in money doesn't help much.

2) If you want to renew, you better take out the entire system. Otherwise, we'll end up with even more dominance of the elite that survive.

3) Among the only industries left standing if this were to happen are those serving the military. We don't need more of their dominance. In fact, it'd creep me out if any of the companies that survive gain dominance, because those are mostly government-related.

4) A good deal of the world economy leans on America. If the US economy is allowed to die, even for the shortest time, the international market will suffer, and then immediately recenter itself around Europe and China (if not Russia and the Middle East, which don't like us). The US will take decades to get that focus back again, if ever.

5) People *will* starve to death, because in dire times nobody will share. Getting people to share is a social dilemma that will never prevail over personal greed. I'd expect massive street fighting over "all the food we could need."

What Obama really needs to get across is that America is seriously threatened as the most powerful nation on Earth and the American people need to stop assuming that they're undoubtedly the best.

No...not really. The truth is because of the reinforcing nature of currency collapse much of the world is much more screwed than the US. There will be no change of focus to Europe/China etc. for a very long time. The damage has already been done. Deleveraging is the ultimate hand that can be played in our monetary system. China owns absolutely nothing. They are the ones who cannot back down until the very end. Why else would they continue to threaten Ts, but still do nothing? Everybody sinks together, but those who rode the bubble up against the USD will tumble much further on the way down. The main point is that the US exports inflation. On the unwind the dynamics are completely different.

Without derailing into a lengthy explanation: if you owe the bank $100 that is your problem, if you owe the bank $10,000,000,000,000 it is the bank's problem.

That being said, things are still going to suck and the..."stimulus"...won't be helping. MULT below 1, alt-a downgrades, etc. here it comes. Probably a war somewhere on the horizon.

[Zippicus]

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

Obama places national security ahead of the economy, which is a good thing because there is no point to have a stable economy if Americans are living in danger and fear. Just this recent 2-3 days, both Iran and North Korea has taken a rather aggressive stance unexpectedly.

I can't say that I'm surprised by the actions of North Korea and Iran. With the Democrats in charge we're probably going to see a lot more people trying to see what they can get away with. They probably think that the worst thing that will happen is nasty-grams from the UN (most probably rightly so) which they can feel free to use as toilet paper.

[Vexx]

It seems to be pretty much standard operations for the North Korean govt. to "see what it can try" when a new administration comes in. Almost as far back as I can remember....

[Sazelyt]

Iran's new aggressive moves may make things more difficult for the Obama administration. Iran is an important piece for his foreign politics, well, to show that he will bring change, and a failure in that may trigger other failures as well. Iran being a player in the Middle East, and its effect on other radical Islamists, is a big reason for that too.

And unlike the Bush administration, a change of pace with Russia may also cause some problems ahead (China too). If too many things appear at once, while the current administration needs to give its most focus on the ongoing problems, Obama's first few years may be full of a lot of "I am sorry" headlines. And at some point openly admitting those mistakes may start to trigger negative responses too.

[james0246]

^Actually better relations with China and Russia (and Europe in general) would relieve some stress concerning Iran and N. Korea. Specifically, China can help to influence N. Korea, and Russia can help to control Iran (this is a very simplistic account of what a more positive relationship with either/both Russia and China can do to help prevent future foreign wars).

To put it another way, if all it takes to ensure peace and prosperity (even if only for a few years) is to apologies for indiscretions or negative boasting, then it might be in the best interest for America to offer some form of apology.

[Sazelyt]

By apologies, I was actually referring to Obama's recent statements about his mistakes. In other words, taking wrong steps. Those ended well, but, it may not always be that way (especially in the future, when his decisions are for more important matters). Those may have more impact on the public, and if they repeat a lot, and if things are still looking bad, people may get bored of those statements, and start to feel negative.

About Russia and China. It depends on their intentions. I doubt that Obama will want to sit quiet, if those countries start to become more aggressive. If you try to look as if you won't really take a step to stop them even if it is needed, these are the countries that may exploit that at the highest level. Especially Russia. The more economical strength it gains, and the more US looks to not care about it, they may start doing things their way. Which may kinda look Bush's way. In such case, we all know Europe will not do anything other than talking, so, it may depend on how US will act. A difficult position. You need to be very careful to not make a mistake and if Obama decides to act too peaceful (like waiting a lot more than needed), mistakes are bound to happen. Right now, Obama is exactly opposite of Bush, regarding being passive. This is a good thing in a peaceful world, but, when things got heated, it may be a weakness.

[yezhanquan]

Well, for being in office for 2 weeks, Obama is trying to get many things moving. I think we need to sit tight and wait until at least the first 100 days are over before we can even begin to do any sort of evaluation.

[Sazelyt]

Well some say, if he needs to make some radical changes, his first few days may offer the best chance to take such steps. When everyone is positive about a change. Later on, it may become more difficult, especially if the public support does not stay at a high level, for some reason.

[Vexx]

Meh.. .I think setting an example this early on "staying clean" will work out for the best. I imagine a lot of "public servants" are scrambling to make sure their finances and taxes are in order now....

[Sazelyt]

And I am guessing some are trying to make sure that they won't be found out, assuming they have already gone beyond an acceptable point. In such case, Obama needs to use his administration to find out such people as early as possible. Cause, if I were a Republican that is aware of such corruptions, I would hold my tongue and stall the process as long as I can, until the right time comes to make it public.

[Shadow Kira01]

Originally Posted by james0246

^Actually better relations with China and Russia (and Europe in general) would relieve some stress concerning Iran and N. Korea. Specifically, China can help to influence N. Korea, and Russia can help to control Iran (this is a very simplistic account of what a more positive relationship with either/both Russia and China can do to help prevent future foreign wars).

To put it another way, if all it takes to ensure peace and prosperity (even if only for a few years) is to apologies for indiscretions or negative boasting, then it might be in the best interest for America to offer some form of apology.

Sounds funny. If Obama decides to do things the way you are suggesting, both Russia and China would definitely benefit from it, whereas the United States will journey to the lost. China cannot control North Korea, even though they do obtain medical supplies and weaponry from them. Russia cannot control Iran, because they don't even follow the same religion and have totally different objectives. It'd be more believable if you said that better relations with Russia would help the US improve relations with Cuba.

If Obama actually consider this idea as a good thing, I am certain that 8 years from now.. Obama would become a second Bush in which Americans are unhappy about.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

Russia cannot control Iran, because they don't even follow the same religion and have totally different objectives.

Iran is supported by Russia in many ways. Considering Russia's overwhelming military power, Iran is not a threat for them. Not having similar objectives in that aspect actually help Iran more, since Russia doesn't need to worry about Iran getting stronger. Their only concern would be related to the energy lines, but if they already have a open/secret deal regarding that, everything should be okay, or at least manageable. By having good relations with Iran, Russia may gain some control in the Middle East, at least prevent US controlling the whole region.

On the other hand, if US can make sure that Russia stays away from Iran, and does not block any kind of semi-offensive decisions at the security council, then, US can have the ability to control Iran's direction. Since Europe is mostly in the middle, US can gain the upperhand it desires. And since that result would be achieved indirectly, with help borrowed from Russia, there won't be significant worry about the reputation going downwards. As long as US can guarantee they won't suffer the consequences of giving something in return to Russia, then Obama's policy may succeed.

Of course, at the end, it will depend on what Russia is planning. US needs to find some common ground.

[Vexx]

I don't know that Iran is "supported" by Russia so much as Iran is just a good customer for arms-dealing Russia (and many other construction projects). Russia doesn't control Iran so much as it simply finds Iran useful in forcing the Europe and the US to waste resources and capital there that might be applied elsewhere.

China is also a major arms dealer with a number of customers we'd rather they not sell to.

And of course, the US is a huge arms dealer.... except we frequently find ourselves giving our customers the money and then having them buy stuff from our companies. :P

Pattern here is that the world's arms dealers are basically propping up situations that might otherwise dissipate if everyone hadn't structured so much of their "big" economic engines in the arms dealing sector.

So... basically it sucks.

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I don't know that Iran is "supported" by Russia so much as Iran is just a good customer for arms-dealing Russia (and many other construction projects). Russia doesn't control Iran so much as it simply finds Iran useful in forcing the Europe and the US to waste resources and capital there that might be applied elsewhere.

China is also a major arms dealer with a number of customers we'd rather they not sell to.

And of course, the US is a huge arms dealer.... except we frequently find ourselves giving our customers the money and then having them buy stuff from our companies. :P

Pattern here is that the world's arms dealers are basically propping up situations that might otherwise dissipate if everyone hadn't structured so much of their "big" economic engines in the arms dealing sector.

So... basically it sucks.

Obligatory insertion of relevant argument from my conflict studies class:

Well, technically there are certain weapons that are considered primarily defensive and therefore might actually decrease the chance of war by giving the defender the advantage, but given that these weapons don't make up all sales, I would tend to agree.