i was trying to find of owl rugby man's posts which said the above to no avail.

i kinda think if we truly didn't need the rest of the world we wouldn't have such a big military. when your varied interests are global a strong presence can be ugly but ultimately necessary. granted, defense is only a small portion of the budget, no? but i think the influence it exerts is greater than it's monetary number. maybe it's not the number one factor that the us needs the world....

i feel we have the resources to live on an island but the feasibility or practicality of the matter, the installation is another matter. what would it entail to be fully autonomous?

please meld with the proper thread if this already exists

Read Peter Zeihan - he's got a fascinating perspective on this and his predictions are looking spot on right now. The main points are: 1) The world does need us; 2) Geography/resources means we don't need the world nearly as much; 3) to the world's surprise, we elected to protect it after WWII, in exchange for nothing other than trade (see Bretton Woods). America has been growing its indifference to Bretton Woods in the last couple of decades and now has someone in office who is not just indifferent but appears to have some animosity toward that framework.

I don't know what it would entail exactly to become "autonomous" but I think we're about to find out.

Sure we could get by without collapsing into developing world status, but people would have to adjust to a lower quality of life.

(06-11-2018 12:06 PM)Niner National Wrote:  Sure we could get by without collapsing into developing world status, but people would have to adjust to a lower quality of life.

In what ways would it lower your quality of life?

FATHER KNOWS BEST

linky pleasy.

OP here's a link before this topic goes into the world of deep dark space to never be seen again

https://www.tomorrowsworld.org/magazines...ut-america

(06-11-2018 11:56 AM)Lush Wrote:  i was trying to find of owl rugby man's posts which said the above to no avail.

i kinda think if we truly didn't need the rest of the world we wouldn't have such a big military. when your varied interests are global a strong presence can be ugly but ultimately necessary. granted, defense is only a small portion of the budget, no? but i think the influence it exerts is greater than it's monetary number. maybe it's not the number one factor that the us needs the world....

i feel we have the resources to live on an island but the feasibility or practicality of the matter, the installation is another matter. what would it entail to be fully autonomous?

please meld with the proper thread if this already exists

To believe that we don't live in a global economy and that we don't need the rest of the world would be simply insane. However, the previous administration worked to minimize our footprint and power on the world's stage, which was the absolute wrong thing to do. The current administration seems to be taking the actuarial approach to offsetting the previous job, but going the exact opposite extreme. I hope it pays off in the long run.

(06-11-2018 12:21 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 11:56 AM)Lush Wrote:  i was trying to find of owl rugby man's posts which said the above to no avail.

i kinda think if we truly didn't need the rest of the world we wouldn't have such a big military. when your varied interests are global a strong presence can be ugly but ultimately necessary. granted, defense is only a small portion of the budget, no? but i think the influence it exerts is greater than it's monetary number. maybe it's not the number one factor that the us needs the world....

i feel we have the resources to live on an island but the feasibility or practicality of the matter, the installation is another matter. what would it entail to be fully autonomous?

please meld with the proper thread if this already exists

To believe that we don't live in a global economy and that we don't need the rest of the world would be simply insane. However, the previous administration worked to minimize our footprint and power on the world's stage, which was the absolute wrong thing to do. The current administration seems to be taking the actuarial approach to offsetting the previous job, but going the exact opposite extreme. I hope it pays off in the long run.

do you think it's prudent to point towards the future?

One big reason we need the rest of the world are rare earth minerals. We have no where close to amount of deposits we need, but they are used in every single piece of technology these days.

(06-11-2018 12:14 PM)green Wrote:  

FATHER KNOWS BEST

Hey, that could be the Demoncraptic Party voters. For them it's party over nation when it deals with the Republicans. They fail to see the ugliness that is their party. Like that loser Maher wanting a recession over a prosperous US in order to appease his anger over Trump.

(06-11-2018 11:56 AM)Lush Wrote:  i was trying to find of owl rugby man's posts which said the above to no avail.

i kinda think if we truly didn't need the rest of the world we wouldn't have such a big military. when your varied interests are global a strong presence can be ugly but ultimately necessary. granted, defense is only a small portion of the budget, no? but i think the influence it exerts is greater than it's monetary number. maybe it's not the number one factor that the us needs the world....

i feel we have the resources to live on an island but the feasibility or practicality of the matter, the installation is another matter. what would it entail to be fully autonomous?

please meld with the proper thread if this already exists

The main problem I see with being an island unto itself is competition.

Say what you will about trade, but competition from abroad keeps our companies honest. Left to their own devices with NO competition, we'd eventually revert back to the days of driving the AMC Pacer, the Pinto, or the Chevette. One of the reasons the Big 3 (or as they're better know today, Ford, Government Motors, and Fiat) are competitive and innovative was competition from Japan among others.

Unless you have someone pushing, companies get lazy and unless consumers have options, companies will put whatever garbage they can out there because people will have no choice but to buy it.

(06-11-2018 12:12 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 12:06 PM)Niner National Wrote:  Sure we could get by without collapsing into developing world status, but people would have to adjust to a lower quality of life.

In what ways would it lower your quality of life?

I'd imagine prices for lots of stuff would increase.

(06-11-2018 01:22 PM)VA49er Wrote:  I'd imagine prices for lots of stuff would increase.

so would wages ...

TRADE-OFF

(06-11-2018 01:28 PM)green Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 01:22 PM)VA49er Wrote:  I'd imagine prices for lots of stuff would increase.

so would wages ...

TRADE-OFF

Whose wages and why would they increase?

To answer the OP, we need the rest of the world far less than they need us. We should become non-interventionist, engage in favorable trade agreements, and let other countries carry the burden of their defense.

The rest of the world needs the US far more than US needs the rest of the world.

As far as the G7 is concerned, it looks like Italy and Japan had no issues with Trump's tough talk. Our allies are abundant and geographically diverse. I highly doubt we'd ever be in this "island" position.

(06-11-2018 01:30 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 01:28 PM)green Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 01:22 PM)VA49er Wrote:  I'd imagine prices for lots of stuff would increase.

so would wages ...

TRADE-OFF

Whose wages and why would they increase?

restrict labor ...
increase demand ...

PONY UP

(06-11-2018 12:06 PM)Niner National Wrote:  Sure we could get by without collapsing into developing world status, but people would have to adjust to a lower quality of life.

Not really. We dont have a higher quality of life due to trade. We have a higher quality of life due to governmental deficit spending and the increased availability/use of consumer debt.

The only thing we really would need to import are rare earth elements. We are not blessed with an abundance of these (especially considering our high usage).

Here is the bottom line. Trump has proposed free and fair trade. He has proposed a completely tariff free zone among the G7 and was shot down. Why is that? Because the reality is there has been a trade war against the US for decades. We just never really bothered to respond because it made goods cheaper---but what it also did is erode our manufacturing base which has eroded our ability to grow the economy at the rate necessary to get everyone properly employed. Thats why wages have been stagnant. What we are actually seeing from Trump is not the start of a trade war---we are seeing the first ever significant US response in a long ignored long running trade war.

(06-11-2018 12:32 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  One big reason we need the rest of the world are rare earth minerals. We have no where close to amount of deposits we need, but they are used in every single piece of technology these days.

Wow. Good job. The answer folks. Doesn't Canada have a majority of the world's nickel. Not gonna Google it