In today's world power is determined by economic success not military mind.

[Scorpio Rocks]

In today's world power is determined by economic success not military mind. Discuss.

[Prezbucky]

We start with freedom and a nation's ability to defend itself and (as the laws of commerce would necessitate) its trade.

I am Tom.

Tom should have a right to reach his fullest potential, based on Tom's intelligence, education, drive for success, empathy for his fellow man, honesty, etc. - all the things that bring success in a free economy.
In that same vein, Tom should be free from the threat of foreign or domestic forces hindering his ability to succeed.

FREEDOM and LIBERTY are the ideals.

No economy should be put in place that will hinder Tom's entrepreneurial spirit, because said spirit will lead Tom to create a business. This business will give people jobs and investment opportunities. In a free market setting, there will be lots of people like Tom, and -- given the scarcity of money.. it doesn't grow on trees -- the multiple Toms will drive companies to employ lots of people, provide investment opportunities (means to increase personal liquid capital), and -- since multiple entrants into an industry means competition -- great value for consumers, as defined by the Quality/Price equation. High quality and low price leads to high value for the consumer.

That is Free Enterprise: The cream are allowed to create opportunities for everyone else. And anyone (ANYONE!!!) can rise if he is willing to take the monetary risk, to become educated, to work on the next great idea, etc.

And then there is Socialism and its dimwit retard step-brother, Communism. Their aim is to arbitrarily level the playing field -- take away economic freedom so the lazy ones don't starve. You can't starve in a socialist society ( theoretically - we saw in the USSR what happens when there isn't an incentive to provide: long lines for bread...). Comrade Communism thinks that property/money rights should not exist, that the smartest/most driven people among us should not be able to provide opportunity for others (as stated before: jobs for the masses, investment opportunities, and great products through competition).

Socialism/Communism teaches people that they are limited in their potential, that the big bad government needs to regulate the economy because people can't do it themselves, or worse, that the acquisition of property is not a right, which KILLS our affinity for success and positive creation for ourselves and others who are not willing to take on the risks inherent to entrepreneurship -- Free Enterprise (AKA Capitalism).

Communism/Socialism is for losers. It is for those who are too lazy to try. It redistributes wealth from those who do to those who willfully don't. And all the while, Free Enterprise allows anyone to succeed or fail at his own discretion.

So you might say, "Okay, Socialism gives to the masses the fruits of the doers' ingenuity/risk, manufacturing a level playing field... holding down the able/willing, raising up the unable/unwilling. And Free Enterprise allows people to rise or fall of their own accord -- they have no guarantee, only the right to try IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO."

You could argue Socialism vs. Free Enterprise all day along those lines.

Trade/economics/culture/government -- the solvency of my sacred US Constitution, Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and my ability to enjoy economic (and other) freedom -- are nothing if my country cannot defend those things.

So for me it's like this:

#1 is liberty: Give me liberty or give me death.

#2 is the military might necessary to dfend that liberty.

Nobody can enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property) if he's dead.
_________________
Billie Jean is not my lover. Hee.

[Happytofita]

My God! The above is a tale of woe, Tom. I bet you voted for Mccain, right?

[Prezbucky]

A tale of woe? Melodramatic, maybe, but the sales pitch for Free Enterprise (the American Way, win or lose -- hopefully Obama will respect it) is one of vitality and the God-given right of everyone to go into the world, do his best, and reap the benefits (or losses -- though if he fails, hopefully he'll have the werewithal to get a job...).

I am proudly a Reagan Free Enterprise Republican, fully acknowledging our greatest president, Abraham Lincoln, and how he and US Grant saved the Union -- if there were a stylish GOP/Lincoln/Capitalism pin to wear, I would wear it.

I understand that the president in this country neither sinks the economy nor makes it flourish: the prez doesn't own all the stock, he doesn't run the businesses, he doesn't buy the goods. Bush did not bring the recession on, our moronic people did. You don't buy a $500,000 house when you make $40,000 annually... you will default.

We've spent a lot on Iraq, Afghanistan and the War on Terror, yes -- as a result, we've spent a lot during the Bush presidency. He was welcomed by 9/11. What was he supposed to do, nothing? Has any president besides Lincoln or maybe FDR been greeted with such shit in the first year of his presidency?

These assholes who rip on Bush should put themselves in his shoes:

ON 9/11, what the F would YOU do, with 300 million angry Americans wanting to shoot people they don't know?

So I'm a Republican Capitalist who empathizes with Bush 2. That said, I'm enough of a pragmatist to realize that Obama's success is more important than my personal wish for him to fail.

We've had 12 recessions in the last 75 years, and we've rebounded from each one, regardless of who was in office or what he could or couldn't control. I hope our investors get up and BUY stock -- seems like a good time since stock prices are low and our economy always -- always -- recovers.

So I hope we recover but not to Obama's credit.

hehe
_________________
Billie Jean is not my lover. Hee.

[Gray]

It was the military mind of targeting already defeated Japan, which established US as the world power. And then followed the cold war - caused by the expansionist drives of the imperialist. What lies beneath the so called nuclear non-proliferation treaty and also the war on terror is not the willingness to erase it entirely but to use it as an instrument to defeat emerging powers.
_________________
First lesson - English, not english. I, not i. ~A student of English

[Gray]

The second largest economy in the world, even if it is tenth most populated country, is nowhere in the power rat race.
_________________
First lesson - English, not english. I, not i. ~A student of English

[Prezbucky]

Who has the #2 economy, the UK?

Population:
China
India
USA
Russia
Indonesia
Japan
Brazil
Mexico
Germany
UK
France
Nigeria

Is that it? (I didn't cheat -- that's off the top of my head)
_________________
Billie Jean is not my lover. Hee.

[Gray]

Polulation:

China
India
United States
Indonesia
Brazil
Pakistan
Bangladesh
Nigeria
Russia
Japan
_________________
First lesson - English, not english. I, not i. ~A student of English

[Prezbucky]

Russia doesn't have 150,000,000+ people? They had about 240,000,000 in 1980 and even though they lost some Soviet states, none were big population-wise

I was thinking about Pakistan but completely forgot Bangladesh.

Anyhow, these were my approximations:

China: 1.25 billion
India: 1.1 billion
US: 310 million
Russia: 200 million
Indonesia: 175 million
Japan: 140 million
Brazil: 140 million
Mexico: 100 million
Germany: 90 million
UK: 80 million
France: 75 million
Nigeria: 70 million

Pakistan and Bangladesh make sense, but Russia's low population ranking has me flabbergasted... is their death rate outpacing their birth rate, or are people leaving Russia... or both?
_________________
Billie Jean is not my lover. Hee.

[Gray]

This I think is not completely irrelevant here --

"In The Clash of Civilizations he argued trenchantly for a revival of collective spirit, and a rejection of both multiculturalism at home and neoconservative universalism abroad", Eric writes at The Meaning of Huntington.
_________________
First lesson - English, not english. I, not i. ~A student of English

[Doitonline]

LOL, some one said you voted for mccain. yeah right..i bet he did