Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs predicts economy will cause US to split

[taters]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a3sayDZz.QKc&refer=us

Russian Professor Says U.S. Will Break Up After Economic Crisis

By Robin Stringer

Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) -- A professor at the diplomatic academy of Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the U.S. will break into six parts because of the nation’s financial crisis.

“The dollar isn’t secured by anything,” Igor Panarin said in an interview transcribed by Russian newspaper Izvestia today. “The country’s foreign debt has grown like an avalanche; this is a pyramid, which has to collapse.”

Panarin said in the interview that the financial crisis will worsen, unemployment will rise and people will lose their savings -- factors that will cause the country’s breakup.

“Dissatisfaction is growing, and it is only being held back at the moment by the elections, and the hope” that President- elect Barack Obama “can work miracles,” he said. “But when spring comes, it will be clear that there are no miracles.”

The U.S. will fracture into six parts: the Pacific coast; the South; Texas; the Atlantic coast, central states and the northern states.

“Now we will see a change to the regulatory system on a global financial scale: America will cease to be the world’s regulator,” to be replaced by China and Russia, he said.


I dont see it. Economically, its easier to handle debt united than separated. But it would be VERY interesting (I dont say 'cool', because it would make all our lives more difficult for a long time).


Now, splitting into 2-3 nations seems FAR more likely, though even that is pretty far fetched. The polarization has gotten so bad, and each side now has beliefs which cannot be negotiated (abortion, civil rights, immigration, gun control, religion, taxation, government roles). The only way each side would ever get what they actually want would be a split...but for that very reason, (and the fact politicians made careers off getting elected by claiming they support ______ and not ever doing anything about it) it could NEVER happen.

[Insomniac]

The only split would be urban and rural. Regionally, every place is 60/40 or closer on most big issues.

[riseabove!]

Won't happen, too many wealthy men have interests in national unity unlike in the Civil War were there was a division between the wealthy.

[taters]

The only split would be urban and rural. Regionally, every place is 60/40 or closer on most big issues.


I dont think that could happen, else you would have 80% of the country in tiny over populated megacities, and one big rural country without the infrastructure to support itself.

Anyone else remember the old jesusland map?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Jesusland_map.svg/600px-Jesusland_map.svg.png

Of course, The midwest, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico, as well as FL MT ND NC Nv NB and VA would have to be added to the blue according to the last two elections (presidential and state)

I would throw Western and Southern Mexico into the blue and eastern Mexico into the red, then add all of the carribean states into the blue.

This kind of north america would be scary, because the blue would have all the primary resources (water, industry, population) sans farmland and oil, which the red would have. Each side would fear the other side invading to take something from it. And to be honest, they would be right to.

[Morfin]

“The dollar isn’t secured by anything,” Igor Panarin said in an interview transcribed by Russian newspaper Izvestia today. “The country’s foreign debt has grown like an avalanche; this is a pyramid, which has to collapse.”

Avalanches don't grow.

The country is not going to split apart.

So now that Russia's perennially-fragile economy is getting stronger due to oil revenues, its academics are going to opine on the state of U.S. affairs. Gee, Igor, that's for the thought. Go back into your hole.

[Morfin]

Won't happen, too many wealthy men have interests in national unity unlike in the Civil War were there was a division between the wealthy.

More importantly, there was a geographical division and there was no powerful central government controlling almost all aspects of life.

Then again, if Mississippi, Arkansas, and Alabama want to leave, hey, I'll help 'em pack. But I think that's not what taters article was contemplating.

But then again, maybe that should be the question, not will the country break up, but what states can we dump?

[taters]

^ I say, let go every state east from Alabama to Texas, North to Tennessee, Northwest to South Dakota, and West through utah and southern Idaho (northern idaho is worth keeping). Let them have that land. Most of it already is or will be storm ridden swampland or barren desert.

Then immediately invade and occupy them afterwards. Operation 'enhancing freedom'.

[Mustard]

The US isn't breaking up, this guy is a retard.

[Daydreamer]

Cecil Jefferys for President of SUSA

[riseabove!]

Won't happen, too many wealthy men have interests in national unity unlike in the Civil War were there was a division between the wealthy.

More importantly, there was a geographical division and there was no powerful central government controlling almost all aspects of life.

Then again, if Mississippi, Arkansas, and Alabama want to leave, hey, I'll help 'em pack. But I think that's not what taters article was contemplating.

But then again, maybe that should be the question, not will the country break up, but what states can we dump?

The only problem is if we get rid of the lowly scum that inhabit many of our lesser states, what does that make us in the ultra-rich elite eyes? We'd no longer be that comfortable buffer for them, so I say keep em all, but make them have a massive battle royal to eliminate those unworthy to part of the United States

[Morfin]

Thunderdome for states! Three go in, one come out.

[Insomniac]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/2008_General_Election_Results_by_County.PNG

Again, it's not a sectional issue.

[Morfin]

Man, I look at that map and its hard to believe McCain didn't win. No, I don't need a post telling me about big cities and population density. I'm glad our electoral college isn't based on counties won.

[taters]

Arizona has massive counties

[Pox]

The Russians know a thing or two about this. In 10 years, Russia will be full of american mobsters and mail order brides.

[Archangel]

Seriously, if I had to live in the same country as Mississippi and West Virginia, I'd want to get the fuck out.

That said, foreign debt is not going to be an issue in the economic collapse of America. Everybody running the country will act as if it didn't exist, until one day, the US will elect a Texan, default on it, point her nukes at her creditors, and go, "whatcha gonna do now?"

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

Seriously, if I had to live in the same country as Mississippi and West Virginia, I'd want to get the fuck out.

That said, foreign debt is not going to be an issue in the economic collapse of America. Everybody running the country will act as if it didn't exist, until one day, the US will elect a Texan, default on it, point her nukes at her creditors, and go, "whatcha gonna do now?"

Fuck yeah!

[Nature's Folly]

The US isn't breaking up, this guy is a retard.

[billy1980]

Everyone keeps saying they would invade the redneck states. Just dont forget who has all the militias and guns.

[taters]

Man, I look at that map and its hard to believe McCain didn't win. No, I don't need a post telling me about big cities and population density. I'm glad our electoral college isn't based on counties won.


Democracy is a weird thing isnt. Crazy that we focus on NUMBER OF VOTES, and now votes from the biggest regions.

80% of those red areas could not function without those tiny blue ones.

[Pox]

terra- is Latin.

chorocracy?

[Insomniac]

Man, I look at that map and its hard to believe McCain didn't win. No, I don't need a post telling me about big cities and population density. I'm glad our electoral college isn't based on counties won.


Democracy is a weird thing isnt. Crazy that we focus on NUMBER OF VOTES, and now votes from the biggest regions.

80% of those red areas could not function without those tiny blue ones.

Actually, it's the other way around.

Without the red areas, the blue ones would starve to death and die of thirst within a week. The red ones wouldn't function as well, but they'd have food in their bellies, energy for their factories, and a sustainable population distribution.

[Claydon]

Man, I look at that map and its hard to believe McCain didn't win. No, I don't need a post telling me about big cities and population density. I'm glad our electoral college isn't based on counties won.


Democracy is a weird thing isnt. Crazy that we focus on NUMBER OF VOTES, and now votes from the biggest regions.

80% of those red areas could not function without those tiny blue ones.

this only further proves what a fucking idiot you really are.

[Archangel]

Actually, it's the other way around.

Without the red areas, the blue ones would starve to death and die of thirst within a week. The red ones wouldn't function as well, but they'd have food in their bellies, energy for their factories, and a sustainable population distribution.

Yeah, but by that reasoning, one could also state that people need cows more than cows need people. That's indeed a pretty true statement, but that doesn't mean that cows are the superior species.

[taters]

Man, I look at that map and its hard to believe McCain didn't win. No, I don't need a post telling me about big cities and population density. I'm glad our electoral college isn't based on counties won.


Democracy is a weird thing isnt. Crazy that we focus on NUMBER OF VOTES, and now votes from the biggest regions.

80% of those red areas could not function without those tiny blue ones.

Actually, it's the other way around.

Without the red areas, the blue ones would starve to death and die of thirst within a week. The red ones wouldn't function as well, but they'd have food in their bellies, energy for their factories, and a sustainable population distribution.

Thats where your wrong. Look at nations with high industrial populations and little farmland (japan, britain, germany). Without the red parts, the blue would just import foods at a slightly more expensive rate.

Most of the food we make we ship off to other countries anyway.

'red' staters love to bring that 'starvation' issue up, and while it was true 150 years ago, its irrelevant now. When you factor in the subsidization rate, its practically the same cost for us to buy foods cheaply from overseas and ship it here than to use our own (which is why we dont use our own and most of our food is shipped to other more land strapped nations, ie japan). Not saying I support that at all. I feel the opposite, but its worth bringing up to red staters who pretend the nation 'vitally' depends on them....it doesnt.

Without the blue areas, there would be 1- Practically No industralization (which is bulk of whats left of our economy), 2- very few educated individuals (which build the industry), 3- a MASSIVE drug problem (meth), 4- No centers to feed into the (recently few) high tech industrial areas the nation depend on.

You wont see many farmers establishing microsoft, or 3m, or Quest communications, nor do you see many wyomingers (just to pick on them) making movies, music and contributing to the world art/cultural scene.

Pax - You are the latin expert here, so Ill defer to your expertise in this field.

[Archangel]

terra- is Latin.

chorocracy?

Topocracy, I think.

[Insomniac]

Oh no, I agree the wealth comes from the blue areas, but you're foolish if you think the blue areas are at all independent of the red.

And I'd also point out that the country's healthy industrialism is in the red areas, like where essentially every carmaker is building its new factories.

[vasili denisov]

I think it's an interesting case of a vision of the US that's a reflection of the resentment and bitterness many in Russia still feel towards the states. Russia's former colonies have become more independent, many growing closer to the US than their former parent, while Russia's economy is in a far weaker position than its former (and not just former) adversary, with its credit rating downgraded, capital flowing out, and the possibility of a massive drop in the ruble's value. Capital is flowing into american federal notes despite recent mistakes and massive amounts of debt, while ten years ago Russia plunged into an economic apocalypse because of its mistakes and debts. So you have a prognostication that betrays envious thinking about its rival and its own self-doubts.

As for a secessionary situation, these tend to based around long-standing ethnic or religious divides. The secession of the southern states took place in the context of a weak federal state, massive fluctuations of borders with western expansion and annexation, and the cultural divide over the institution of slavery. None of those properties are relevant to the country now.

[Morfin]

taters: You are just someone who needs to argue for the sake of arguing. My original comment had to do with how "red" the map looks, when the population density means that the smaller blue areas actually have a lot of votes.

You then turned that into a red v blue thing and who needs who more (as opposed to a symbiotic relaitonship) and, for whatever reason, you were able to suck others into your little "argument." I don't know what your problem is, but it appears to be that you are only happy when you are arguing and telling everyone else how stupid they are.

[Archangel]

And I'd also point out that the country's healthy industrialism is in the red areas, like where essentially every carmaker is building its new factories.

None of those carmakers are American, though.

[Morfin]

I think it's an interesting case of a vision of the US that's a reflection of the resentment and bitterness many in Russia still feel towards the states. Russia's former colonies have become more independent, many growing closer to the US than their former parent, while Russia's economy is in a far weaker position than its former (and not just former) adversary, with its credit rating downgraded, capital flowing out, and the possibility of a massive drop in the ruble's value. Capital is flowing into american federal notes despite recent mistakes and massive amounts of debt, while ten years ago Russia plunged into an economic apocalypse because of its mistakes and debts. So you have a prognostication that betrays envious thinking about its rival and its own self-doubts.

As for a secessionary situation, these tend to based around long-standing ethnic or religious divides. The secession of the southern states took place in the context of a weak federal state, massive fluctuations of borders with western expansion and annexation, and the cultural divide over the institution of slavery. None of those properties are relevant to the country now.

I am not aware of the history of this reason, but I agree that, to the extent that the Russians -- either Tsars or USSR -- took over independent countries/ethnic groups, there is no history of a common purpose -- as with the U.S. states -- but more of a history of a bully and a people that are just waiting for the bully to turn his back so they can run away.

[vasili denisov]

I am not aware of the history of this reason, but I agree that, to the extent that the Russians -- either Tsars or USSR -- took over independent countries/ethnic groups, there is no history of a common purpose -- as with the U.S. states -- but more of a history of a bully and a people that are just waiting for the bully to turn his back so they can run away.
I think the problem is that there is a strong nationalist view that many former Soviet states belonged with Russia as part of a larger union, and that whatever the circumstances for the union, the member states were protected and benefited because of the union. Some examples of this would be that Gorbachev (the last leader of the Union) was viewed with utter contempt for dissolving the union; the ongoing rancor over NATO membership and missile defense (though here it's nationalism as well as genuine unease with the genuine threat of such entities); the anger over Estonia taking down a statue commemorating Russian war dead, culminating in massive cyberattacks; the recent uproar over Ukraine's commemoration of Ukrainian dead during the great terror (Stalin's purges) as genocide, a separate crime against Ukrainians, rather than part of a larger mass murder of Soviets.

[Morfin]

So the satellites were angry about Gorbachev breaking up the Union because they looked at it as an abandonment?

[Archangel]

No, the Russians hate him for letting the union - which they dominated - dissolve. He's like their anti-Lincoln.

[vasili denisov]

So the satellites were angry about Gorbachev breaking up the Union because they looked at it as an abandonment?
No, the other way around.
No, the Russians hate him for letting the union - which they dominated - dissolve. He's like their anti-Lincoln.
Yeah, that way around. Politically, a very strong nationalist streak starts up after the dissolution of the Soviet union. It shows up in the incredible success of right-wing lunatic Vladimir Zhironovsky (imagine if a US election had to be fixed to keep a less rational Michael Savage from winning it), the war in Chechnya (which Yeltsin starts because he thinks it'll be quick and get him nativist bona fides), the hard nationalist tilt of the communist party, and the support of Serbia during the balkan wars.

[Archangel]

Yeah, but supporting Serbia was always one of Russia's main foreign policy points. I mean, they were the only guys in the area who didn't drop to their knees to suck Mussolini and Hitler's dicks.

[taters]

Oh no, I agree the wealth comes from the blue areas, but you're foolish if you think the blue areas are at all independent of the red.

And I'd also point out that the country's healthy industrialism is in the red areas, like where essentially every carmaker is building its new factories.

Building, but not established. And almost all foreign.

Ill agree to disagree. To be fair, I think both sides could survive independently. Their national focus and economies would be DRASTICALLY different. Still, if a split were to happen, the blue would have the advantage. Population + industry + popularity = Heavy advantage. As seen the last time the country nearly split.

[vasili denisov]

Yeah, but supporting Serbia was always one of Russia's main foreign policy points. I mean, they were the only guys in the area who didn't drop to their knees to suck Mussolini and Hitler's dicks.
I don't doubt that we've seen these feelings before; you've got a long-standing attitude towards Chechens as a distinct and inferior people, Dostoevsky has this strong pro-slavic stance later in life, Gogol celebrates brutal cossacks in Taras Bulba...there are probably better and more prominent examples. In the case of Serbia, whatever strategic interests might have existed in the past, here, I thought, it was a case of nationalist considerations exclusive to any others.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Okie should be banned from starting threads.

[taters]

I don't know what your problem is, but it appears to be that you are only happy when you are arguing and telling everyone else how stupid they are.


No, just you and your false bourgouis[sic] smugness.

You made a comment about how 'you cant believe Obama won when you see all the red on the map". That means you either cant understand what a democracy is, or your being facetious to the point of goading a follow up. So I indulged you. You should be thanking me.

[freegood]

Yeah, that way around. Politically, a very strong nationalist streak starts up after the dissolution of the Soviet union. It shows up in the incredible success of right-wing lunatic Vladimir Zhironovsky (imagine if a US election had to be fixed to keep a less rational Michael Savage from winning it), the war in Chechnya (which Yeltsin starts because he thinks it'll be quick and get him nativist bona fides), the hard nationalist tilt of the communist party, and the support of Serbia during the balkan wars.

They also felt that Gorbechev gave up on Russian industry too quickly by accepting Western help. The consequences of Shock Therapy and the rise of thugocracy from the oligarchs who extorted their way into corporate power during the Yeltsin era would support this view.

It'd be as if China's government collapsed after Tienanmen Square and let in teams of American douchebag economists who don't know shit tell them to portion off every market controlled stock to the people and then let the fairy godmother and her invisible hand decide their fates.

On the standpoint of Gorbachev's notoriety, it's one of the few things Russians and Chinese agree upon, despite the West seeing the same thing differently.

[willydong]

one can only wish...

[Archangel]

No, just you and your false bourgouis[sic] smugness.

*bourgeois. (sic), my arse.