h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Okay, people seem to think that more politics needs to be discussed here so how about this?

Recently the US raised import tariffs on steel. They also have done something similar with Spainish clementines. Import tariffs are twice as much in the US than in the EU. Surely the US believe in free trade but these acts indicate that the US only want free trade is they know they can't lose out to other countries. Does this undermine the terms of free trade? Will this lead to another trade war with the US like a few years ago over bananas and earlier still over the import of French wine? Couple this with the US spending on defense (40% of world defense is spent by the US and per head they spend twice as much per head that Britain and four times as much as Germany or France). The US is increasingly taking a militant role in the world supposedly in the role of peace keepers though the actually peace keeping is left up to the UN afterwards. Does this indicate that the US is scared of losing out to other countries, that it has to be the best? Is this a result of the attacks on the World Trade Center - something that the military couldn't stop in the first place as there was no 'clear and present danger'? As a military and economic Goliath does this mean that the US are well on the way to building an Empire? Does it appear that the US is unable to accept that they are not the only country of importance? Will this force other countries to become US puppets, dancing to the will of the US? Does the US see itself as the new Roman Empire? This is already happening, where will it end? And what do the people of the US think? Are they happy with their government's actions?

These are controversial questions but then that is the point of debate. However, please keep it as a debate and not a slanging match. After all the US gave the Simpsons...

...but then again, they also gave us 'Dharma and Greg'. But seriously, folks...

I think what we're seeing here is the fruits of the Bush administrations (alleged) desire to please the public, please themselves and have tax cuts into the bargain. Frankly, I think their economic strategies are pretty dire - the tax rebates were claimed to increase consumer confidence and therefore spending, thus in turn supporting the economy. However, the people who needed it most - and indeed those most likely to spend - were the poorest people and the unemployed, who of course received very little or even nothing.

This is just my humble opinion here, but I think that you're right about US military insecurities. I have read numerous statements from Washington officials and also the US press, effectively saying that the European Union is a bunch of whiners who only insist on sticking to international agreements because they haven't the military capabilities to blow up anyone else. (Please see Guardian Unlimited; the article in question was in the G2 section a couple of weeks ago - http://www.guardian.co.uk) I'm no nationalist, and I'm against military actions in Afghanistan and indeed as proposed in Iraq, but I do feel that the US administration is exploiting the International Community; it has been isolationist - and is now perhaps even more so in some respects - and yet is willing to use the resources of other countries, including those of the EU, to fight its own grudge-wars. The import tariffs just demonstrate a double-standard in this administration - or maybe that it simply has no regard for the wellbeing of any of its neighbours, allies and ultimately, fellow human beings.

An article of interest: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4369907,00.html

well said

If written properly would this be a fitting inclusion with the Post? It would also be nice to have some imput from the US members. Also the post would allow a greater number of people to join in on the debate though it could turn into a US bashing thing but hopefully not.

'Dharma and Greg'? I'll pass on that one

Ooooh... perhaps this could be the start of a topic for my first hosted debate, which I said I'd do... I think we need a bit of a variant, though, because quite a few US researchers will probably be for Bush's actions, whilst those in Europe and elsewhere will not. What do you think?

I don't know the adminstrations position on the steel tariffs. I just wanted to drop a quick note about the tax rebate.

It was a tax rebate, therefore if people didn't pay taxes, then they didn't have anything to get a refund on. They didn't deserve a rebate. It went to the people who should have received it. I think it was fair in that it was a standard amount. It wasn't an idea that I would have thought of, but it seems reasonable to me.

Why not use this topic as a debate thingy? I'm not sure of the variant as it started out about trade wars then went into the increase of US denfence spending. It might be better to try and keep the two topics separate or combine them in a 'Is the US Trying to Expand its Ecomic and Military Power Status?' sort of thing. Keep me posted (and acknowledged ).

The rebate thingy. I was under the impression - which could be wrong - that Clinton did a lot of work to try and reduce the US National Debt. Bush's policies have increased the time it will take to get rid of the National Debt and possibly increase it. Personally I can't ever see any country ever paying back it's National Debt but certainly drastically reducing it would seem a viable option. Surely getting rid of any debt to start afresh is always 'a good thing'? For example, if I had a morgage worth £25000, it would cost me £75000 to pay off over 25 years (these figures are just examples - unfortunately houses aren't that cheap here any more). If I could pay it off in 5 years by spending £35000 I'd save £45000 over the next 20 years which could go on other things. Thus in a similar way, if the US could get rid of it's National Debt sooner rather than later it could save more money which could go into Health Care, Social Services, Defense (Tee-Hee), tax rebates and so on. Do you see my point? Part of the problem is that a lot of politics (and for that matter business) is almost always projected for the next 5 years. Basically until their next term in office. These policies always seem so shortsighted. And the economy was booming under Clinton. When it was announced Bush had won the election stocks started to drop overnight because of his proposed policies. He also brought in a lot of the administration that his father and Reegan had. An administration that contributed to the economic mess Clinton spent a great deal of effort clearing up. A tax rebate is a short term measure. It might curb a recession until the next term in office. Though increased defense spending will probably be better as so many jobs can be created as result. Reducing defense spending in Russia had huge repercussions. Instead of a tax rebate, perhaps Bush should have channeled the money into creating more jobs rather than relying on consumer confidence (on a number of goods not produced in the US). This was how FDR managed to get the US out of the depression. It worked. They even gave him a third term...