Russian Professor Predicts End of U.S.

The Constitution isn't broken at all. This is what was intended.

What was intended was a compromise between supporters of state's rights and federalism. Such was made, and both sides would have assumed that the Constitution would be kept to the letter.

To use an example, where was the right for the President to purchase territory?
 
What was intended was a compromise between supporters of state's rights and federalism. Such was made, and both sides would have assumed that the Constitution would be kept to the letter.

To use an example, where was the right for the President to purchase territory?

What said he couldn't?
 
I don't think the Russian who believes USA is on the verge of a national disintigration has a clue how our nation is organized. We are a stronger nation exactly because we have a decentralized power structure.

Even the big government stimulus package we just got will empower local entities. The money is sent to the states, who will pour over bids sent in by local mayors and decide where the money goes, then the work will be contracted out to companies, who will rehire people to get the work done.

"We're in crisis, I can do better on my own." rings false when there are so many opportunities right now for people who aren't afraid to take them, sorry.
 
I would say that haveing other nations absorbing your debt and useing some of your many, states in this case as collateral may be one reason some think that a breakup may be comeing, and lest i not forget 31 states last i heard were in multiple stages of declareing sovereignty, awhile back the congress was threatened with martial law if thay did not pass the first bailout witch as i remember did not end up being 700
billion but according to bloomberg last time i saw 8.5 trillion.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/06/news/economy/where_stimulus_fits_in/index.htm

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/26/MNVN14C8QR.DTL
 
and lest i not forget 31 states last i heard were in multiple stages of declareing sovereignty, awhile back the congress was threatened with martial law if thay did not pass the first bailout...

Where did you hear this?

Last time my state declared sovereignty, it ended really, really badly for my particular part of it...
 
Where did you hear this?

Last time my state declared sovereignty, it ended really, really badly for my particular part of it...

A declaration of sovereignty is not secession, at least according to the resolutions Spitfire just posted. Actually the 1995 Georgia one looks a bit symbolic. They demanded the congress to cease and desist from attempting to pass extraconstitutional resolutions, or something to that effect. (Wait, it was Gingrich-led in 1995. I thought Georgia legislature was Republican at the time? That's a slight cognitive dissonance. Makes no sense... Maybe I'll look that up one day.)
 
I meant in the Constitution- that the feds won't let them do it in practice is undisputed.

Originally posted by the US Constitution
We, the people of the United States, in order to form more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The USA is a union, not a confederacy. A union is permanent, a confederacy is not.

Using the constitution as evidence that secession is allowable is paradoxical. It is stated that the constitution is 'for the United States of America'. If you are seceding, then it is no longer the United States that you are seceding from.
 
Ironically, Jim Rogers expects Russia to crumble.
Transcript
Spoiler :
"Thanks very much for giving us your time, first of all and welcome to Russia. You have made some investments in China because the government is planning big stimulus plan there, what are you making of what Russia`s doing, do you see anything interesting here in Russia that you're investing in?

In October, November I did buy more Chinese stocks but I am not buying shares in any other country in the world right now, because most of the world is in serious trouble including China. Don't get me wrong, but I'm not investing anywhere and certainly not investing in Russia.

Certainly not, why?

Well, I am certainly not investing in America either, for that matter and certainly not in the UK but no, the Russians have lots of problems, deep seated problems as far as I am concerned, perhaps there`s a chance Russia will continue to disintegrate in more than one country. There are lots of potential problems in the former soviet union.

Disintegrate, you mean, into separate countries?

The soviet union broke up into 15 countries, Russia itself has the potential to continue to break up, the Ukraine may break up Kazakhstan could break up, this is still not stable and every empire has disintegrated through out history. The reverberations have gone on for long periods of time. So I am sure there's good investment in Russia if you're on the ground and you can stay with them, but not for me.

What in your opinion is Russia doing right and what is Russia doing wrong in handling this crisis?

Well, what they're doing wrong is that they are propping up their banks which I find reprehensible I find bad economics and bad morality as well, the way the system is supposed to work is suppose you take the assets from the incompetent and give them to the competent and you start over from a stronger base. Well the Russians are making the same mistakes that the British and the Americans and everybody else is making. But taking the assets from the competent and giving them to the incompetent and know thy can compete with the competent, it weakens the whole system. Putin at least seems to understand that there is a problem with the US dollar, that the world needs to adjust to that problem, he seems to understand some of the problems the world faces better than we do in America, but for the most part the Russians are making mistakes too.

You said the Pound is finished, what is your take on the ruble?

Ahhh, the ruble. That's a very good question. I am not sure, even if I had an answer I am not sure I would give it to you. No, I am not optimistic about the future of the Ruble at all. The Russian at least have natural resources to some extend but I am not optimistic about the continuing stability of Russia. The natural resources, the reserves are declining as you know, because they have been stripping the assets here in Russia for some time. Oil production peaked, production of most things peaked in Russia for the foreseeable future, so I am not buying the ruble either.

The Government announced that it would defend the ruble at 41 against the Euro / Dollar basket. Was that a mistake to announce a target?

It always as been in the past the market has learned in the last few sessions that you can always bet against the central banks and you will make money eventually. So when a central bank says “don't you worry the pound is going to stay here or the ruble is going to stay here or whatever, ultimately that has always failed if the fundamentals are not sound and will fail again, everybody knows what the target is.

What is driving the fall of the ruble? Is it regular people panicking and putting their money into dollars, that one thing we`ve heard from bankers here at this forum, or is speculation?

Its mainly the Russians, in fact whenever a currency fails through out history it has always started internally, the foreigners always get the blame because the politicians like to blame all their problems on the foreigners, because they don`t vote and their not there. Right now I think there something like 20 or 25% of deposits in banks in Russia in foreign currencies by Russian and not by foreigners. So its always starts with the local people, because local people always know best what`s going wrong and they start moving out. The speculators historically always show up later.

So there are Russian speculators that may be involved here too, or is this just the average bank depositor moving their money into dollars out of concern?

It seems pretty obvious that its intelligent people making intelligent decisions with their money, they can see there`s going to be problems with the ruble so they, intelligent Russians have been moving out of the ruble. The ruble is down 50 or 60% in the last few moths, or in the last year or so.

The Central Bank said today that they won't have to spill much blood to defend the ruble at 41, do you believe them?

I don't believe in any central bank no matter what they say. The few times central banks have been right at something, you can count them with one hand. If you get your investment advice from central banks or governments you are going to go broke fast, don't listen to those people.

Are you short the ruble?

I am not doing anything with the ruble, not right now. But knowing that the central bank drew a line in the sand it makes me stand up and take a little more notice about the ruble. So I will start thinking more about it."

Audio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkYAam_nkqg
 
The USA is a union, not a confederacy. A union is permanent, a confederacy is not.

Using the constitution as evidence that secession is allowable is paradoxical. It is stated that the constitution is 'for the United States of America'. If you are seceding, then it is no longer the United States that you are seceding from.

1- The Founding Fathers didn't make the distinction- you (and to an extent the people who made the Confederacy, to distinguish themselves from the North) did.

2- That could be argued two ways. Firstly, you could say (falsely) that you were destroying the Union. Second, you can point out correctly that the other states are still in it- the United States has survived with 13 states, so it can survive with 50-something.
 
The Founding Fathers didn't make the distinction- you (and to an extent the people who made the Confederacy, to distinguish themselves from the North) did.

The word 'union' means the act of uniting two or more things. Uniting something is to join, incorporate, or combine so as to form a single or whole unit. So by definition, the union of the United States abolished the separate parts, making them a whole, and not a bunch of parts. The Founding Fathers made that distinction with their choice of words.
 
Panarin argued that Americans are in moral decline, saying their great psychological stress is evident from school shootings, the size of the prison population and the number of gay men.

#1 I think this guy is crazy

#2 the things listed above happen everywhere unfortunatly...except the gay men part..There are no gay men in Iran...
 
The word 'union' means the act of uniting two or more things. Uniting something is to join, incorporate, or combine so as to form a single or whole unit. So by definition, the union of the United States abolished the separate parts, making them a whole, and not a bunch of parts. The Founding Fathers made that distinction with their choice of words.

If the Union abolished the seperate parts, why was the word State used? At that time, it meant a soveriegn entity.
 
The word 'union' means the act of uniting two or more things. Uniting something is to join, incorporate, or combine so as to form a single or whole unit. So by definition, the union of the United States abolished the separate parts, making them a whole, and not a bunch of parts. The Founding Fathers made that distinction with their choice of words.

If that were the case, they wouldn't be considered separate states at all.

When New York ratified the Constitution (I think this was the case with Virginia, too), they claimed the right to withdraw from it. There wasn't widespread agreement on whether the Constitution allowed secession, but it got settled in a very convincing and clear manner in the 1860s. That pretty much ended the argument, although we could argue whether for right or wrong until the end of time.
 
Back
Top Bottom