The End of the United States?

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=Cosmic Relief]
Economical doesn’t mean “cheap” in this sense. It means when oil is $300 a barrel, suddenly the $200 a barrel sources don’t look so bad anymore. And when you factor in the increased appetite of China, India and the developing nations, it doesn’t look good.

There will always be some oil available to someone at some price, but it’s going to get pretty scarce pretty soon, and it is going to change geopolitics in a serious way.
[/QUOTE]

Except that there are huge deposits within the United States and Canada. It looks worse for China than it does for us.

62

[QUOTE=mswas]
Except that there are huge deposits within the United States and Canada. It looks worse for China than it does for us.
[/QUOTE]

What, you think Canada is going to sell oil to the US at lower prices than the rest of the market? As long as oil is sold on an open market and demand exceeds supply, it looks bad for everyone. Of course the closer you can buy your oil to home, the less you’re exposed to external conflict, I grant you that, but it doesn’t protect you from the price shocks of the open market.

63

[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
'Cuz ya know progressives never, ever try to impose* their* values on anybody else, no sirree. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]

I never said I wanted to impose my values on anyone else. I merely want to disassociate myself from those who have been a nigh intractable check on progress since the foundation of the U.S.

64

[QUOTE=Cosmic Relief]
What, you think Canada is going to sell oil to the US at lower prices than the rest of the market? As long as oil is sold on an open market and demand exceeds supply, it looks bad for everyone. Of course the closer you can buy your oil to home, the less you’re exposed to external conflict, I grant you that, but it doesn’t protect you from the price shocks of the open market.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, I expect that Canada will sell oil to the US at lower prices than the rest of the market. But even outside of that, the US has one of the hugest reserves in the world stretching across many western states among the shale. Canada benefits from the US Military being there to protect them, they have a strategic interest in keeping their downstairs neighbor happy. But besides that, it would be easier to ship the oil to the US, thus a lot of the built-in cost of going worldwide with it can result in cheaper oil for the US with higher dividends to Canada due to the fact that it can be shipped directly through existing infrastructure. Not all profit is measured directly in dollars. The collapse of the US economy is just as bad for Canada as it is for the US.

65

[QUOTE=MichaelQReilly]
I never said I wanted to impose my values on anyone else. I merely want to disassociate myself from those who have been a nigh intractable check on progress since the foundation of the U.S.
[/QUOTE]
Gee, it must be tough for enlightened, superior beings such as yourself to have to share a country with ordinary people.

66

[QUOTE=mswas]
Yes, I expect that Canada will sell oil to the US at lower prices than the rest of the market.
[/QUOTE]

Why?

How? Can you provide any specific examples of this alleged benefit?

67

[QUOTE=RickJay]
Why?
[/quote]

Because it is in Canada’s interest to have a priority relationship with the richest nation on the planet that also happens to be its nearest neighbor. Big oil deals aren’t negotiated purely with money, they are also negotiated with diplomacy. There are other concerns that go into it.

Umm, longest unprotected border in the world, doesn’t require having a large military themselves. Benefits from being the primary trading partner with the wealthiest nation on the plant. This will become even more relevant when Russia starts to press that the Arctic is their territory, and Canada wants to press it as well. Russia will be a lot nicer if the US is backing Canada’s play. As for specific examples, Canada not being invaded despite being one of the most resource rich countries on the planet with a huge territory to defend and a small population to defend it, isn’t really something I can prove. The proof is in the absence of conflict.

68

[QUOTE=RickJay]
How? Can you provide any specific examples of this alleged benefit?
[/QUOTE]

No idea what mswas was getting at, but I’d say the same benefit as much of Europe gets…namely they save money they would other wise have to spend on defense. Canada has pretty much left it to the US to do the real heavy lifting on defense for quite a while now…unless you think their current defense budget is adequate for the role Canada wishes to plan in the world?

I doubt Canada is going to see oil to the US at a lower price though…nor do I think the US expects them to.

-XT

69

xtisme People sell commodities at different rates all the time. The US will negotiate to buy a huge percentage of their gasoline. It will be worthwhile because they won’t have to deal with the hassle of building any new infrastructure or shipping it overseas. Also, a lot of their oil will be shipped THROUGH the US. This is how oil deals work. It’s not simply about straight up price per barrel, but also about how the oil is transported, and other side benefits. Like say for instance, they make a deal to cut the US a break on millions of barrels of oil and suddenly the softwood tariffs are reduced. This is how business is done.

That and buying in bulk helps.

70

We have 700 bases in over 100 countries. Canada will gladly let us do stupid lifting like that.

71

[QUOTE=xtisme]
No idea what mswas was getting at, but I’d say the same benefit as much of Europe gets…namely they save money they would other wise have to spend on defense. Canada has pretty much left it to the US to do the real heavy lifting on defense for quite a while now…unless you think their current defense budget is adequate for the role Canada wishes to plan in the world?
[/QUOTE]

Well, perhaps you could tell me what that role is that Canada’s not spending money on. I was unaware that Canada had particularly ambitious military plans, and so far’s I know we pay the frieght for what we do. I’m quite honestly curious as to what “Heavy lifting” Canada has asked the United States to do. Where has the United States incurred a marginal cost on providing for the defense of Canada? Are there American troops stationed in Canada? American fighters patrolling Canadian airspace? American warships protecting Halifax?

In fact, could you point to a single expenditure the USA has committed to for the defense of Canada that they would not have spent anyway? I’m looking for some marginal costs here. If there aren’t any - and I sure can’t think of any - then how is the United States providing for Canada’s defense?

I COULD, on the other hand, cite a billion dollars or two and some scores of lives that Canada has spent defending the United States in the last six or seven years. Right now, it seems to me the balance sheet between Canada and the USA, in terms of mutual provision of defence, is quite obviously black on our side and red on yours. Here are their names, in case anyone down there cares.

72

RickJay This is sort of a tiresome straw man. The point is that Canada benefits from ‘what the US would be doing anyway’ by not having to spend as much on defense. No one will think of attacking Canada because the US is there to defend it.

Canadians are so like the little brother that denies needing the big brother’s help in the fight, even though the question will never be resolved because the big brother is always there looming in the background.

73

[QUOTE=RickJay]
Well, perhaps you could tell me what that role is that Canada’s not spending money on.
[/QUOTE]

IIRC Canada’s defense budget is something like 1% of your GDP…which ranks you fairly low on the defense budget totem pole world wide, at least as a percentage of your GDP (this is from memory…I can probably dig up cites sometime this week in theory if I ever get to go home from work). Are you seriously contending that this is sufficient money for your defense…or that Canada spends less on it’s defense than they would if the US wasn’t here and wasn’t spending so much on our MUTUAL defense? Seriously? 1% (or whatever it is…maybe it’s up to 2% now)??

[QUOTE=RickJay]
I’m quite honestly curious as to what “Heavy lifting” Canada has asked the United States to do.
[/QUOTE]

Canada has almost no ability to project any kind of military force outside your own borders. Do you use oil? Do you trade outside of Canada? Who protects your overseas interests…or do you suppose you protect your own with your massive military capabilities? Even in your own country you couldn’t protect yourself if the US wasn’t here…and wasn’t an ally. You have no great Navy…yet you have hundreds of thousands of miles of coast that is virtually unprotected. You have vast natural resources…yet they aren’t threatened by any outside power. Why do you suppose that is? How long do you suppose that happy state would continue if the US wasn’t here…and wasn’t spending the money we do on defense? Do you think your defense budget would stay so low in that event? Why or why not?

[QUOTE=RickJay]
Are there American troops stationed in Canada?
[/QUOTE]

Of course not…why would they need to be? No sane nation on earth would attack Canada unless they were going to take on the US first. No sane nation on earth would even CONSIDER attacking Canada unless the US was out of the way first. OUR military might is what makes Canada so safe and so prosperous. We do it for our own reasons of course, and I doubt many American’s even give it a second thought…but the reality is that it’s our defense spending that allows you and the Europeans to pretty much ignore spending money on your own military and instead spend that money on other things. Like all those wonderful social programs you guys have.

Unless you want to contend that Canada has zero strategic outside your own borders of course. Like I said…do you use oil? Do you trade with outside nations? If so then I’d say the answer is you DO have them.

[QUOTE=RickJay]
n fact, could you point to a single expenditure the USA has committed to for the defense of Canada that they would not have spent anyway?
[/QUOTE]

Nope…not a one. We’d be spending the same money on defense we do today for historical reasons…and because that is what superpowers do. I can point out however that the fact that we spend the money on defense we do is what allows YOU to not spend it however due to the unique relationship between the US and Canada…and the fact that you are located right next door to us. Do you feel that if Canada, with all your natural resources and area coupled with your low population, would be able to spend a mere 1% of your GDP on defense if you were located in, say, Africa? How about the ME? Asia?

[QUOTE=RickJay]
If there aren’t any - and I sure can’t think of any - then how is the United States providing for Canada’s defense?
[/QUOTE]

By creating the situation where YOU DON’T HAVE TO DEFEND YOURSELF.

[QUOTE=RickJay]
I COULD, on the other hand, cite a billion dollars or two and some scores of lives that Canada has spent defending the United States in the last six or seven years.
[/QUOTE]

When you helped the Brits in WWII did that mean they owed you for defense and that they were beholden to you for assisting them? Did it mean that the Brits REALLY hadn’t provided you with yet another shield in the past…so you wouldn’t have to? You really feel that way?

-XT

74

This is apparently the OP’s third such thread. He must love the topic!

See: How Will the United States End? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board

and: How Will the U.S. Meet Its End? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board

75

I think a lot of folks are salivating about the possibility of the US being no more…or at least being put back in our place. And a lot of the most fervent I’ve met are actually other American’s. A guy at my work is rubbing his hands together as we speak. All he can talk about is how the dominoes are falling and how the US will break up or at the very least how we will no longer be a superpower to plague the world with. He is actually jumping for joy about the possibility as he sees it that there will be no US in his lifetime.

Not that I put the OP in that category…but a lot of people are drawn to thoughts of the US collapsing a la Rome…or perhaps the British Empire.

-XT

76

xtisme Where is it that you work that that such topics are even possible water cooler fodder?

77

I work at a place with an internet connection and a lot of IT geeks who work ungodly hours. When you work with someone for 72 straight hours all kinds of bizarre stuff comes out…and the guy I was referring to who can’t wait for the US to be destroyed is one of those mountain man types who wants things to go back to the way they were ‘in the old days’.

Though his reasons are different he isn’t exactly alone in his desire to see the US gone…or at least the US brought low. Consider someone like Der Trihs for instance.

-XT

78

[QUOTE=xtisme]
I work at a place with an internet connection and a lot of IT geeks who work ungodly hours. When you work with someone for 72 straight hours all kinds of bizarre stuff comes out…and the guy I was referring to who can’t wait for the US to be destroyed is one of those mountain man types who wants things to go back to the way they were ‘in the old days’.
[/quote]

There are plenty of untamed wildernesses in this country that he could go live in, why doesn’t he? Why is he working in IT?

Obviously, but we don’t work with Der Trihs, and I doubt he rants like he does at work. I’ve been in places where such talk is permissible, but I’ve worked in some unorthodox jobs.

79

[QUOTE=mswas]
xtisme Where is it that you work that that such topics are even possible water cooler fodder?
[/QUOTE]
Where would you work where such discussions were not possible on breaks or lunch? IT, construction, and retail: I have seen similar discussions (with wildly varying viewpoints) in many of the jobs I’ve held.

80

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Where would you work where such discussions were not possible on breaks or lunch? IT, construction, and retail: I have seen similar discussions (with wildly varying viewpoints) in many of the jobs I’ve held.
[/QUOTE]

Well it seems like the sort of thing that might make for strained tensions in the office. I generally do not speak of the downfall of the US government on the job. Not that it would be expressly forbidden, but it does strike me as sort of odd. I generally try to avoid politics at work.

Depending on the job of course. A writing job I have now is at a company that is run by some of my best friends, so sure I might talk about such a subject there. We had some pretty riotous discussions about Spitzer’s Moll the other day.