End of the Greatest Economic Era

Jump to Last Post 1-4 of 4 discussions (192 posts)
  1. Ken Burgess profile image76
    Ken Burgessposted 19 months ago

    Prior to the American Era... the Greatest Economic Era in human history... there was the Imperial Era.

    Throughout the Imperial Era, and all of recorded human history prior, countries produced their own food, their own energy, and expanded out and took whatever else they needed, creating colonies or empires defended by military forces.

    The American era came after WWII when all the world's navies, industries and armies had been all but destroyed, save for the Soviet Union and America.

    America in particular changed how the world worked, they came together with their allies and said, essentially, you no longer need to have navies, we will patrol the waters/trade-ways all over the world for you.

    Free Trade was protected by America, no matter who you were or who you wanted to trade with.  This was the case for the entire world when the Soviet Union collapsed, and it lasted up until 2020 when we had the Pandemic and then the Biden election and the start of hostilities with Russia and China.

    The problem now, is Globalization is not just collapsing, it has been fatally sabotaged.

    Over the last 30 years, Russia, along with Ukraine and Belarus, became interwoven with Global trade.  Europe became dependent on Russia's energy products Oil and Gas, while the world became dependent on products like Fertilizer, Potash, Neon, and even Wheat produced from these three nations which collectively they were the #1 producers in these categories and more.

    Even if they were to find peace tomorrow, which is desperately needed so that the crippling damage that is to come to our civilization can be minimized, the severity of harm that is to come to the people of Europe and many other parts of the world cannot be averted.

    Biden has ushered in the De-Globalization stage of humanity.

    An age that is going to be darker for the majority of humanity than we have enjoyed in the previous 40 or 50 years.

    First Biden has completely decoupled Russia (and Belarus and Ukraine) from the rest of the world.  This in turn makes all those products and materials I noted that they were #1 in the world producing (some in the range of 80% of the world's supply) unavailable.

    Second Biden has decoupled China from America far more than Trump ever did.  This impact has not even begun to be felt.  The hard turn-off of trade between the two nations only just began when Biden moved to choke off Beijing’s supply of microchips used in advanced computing and military applications, just this month.

    Third Biden has impacted not just the production of energy products in America, he is cutting off the ability for Russia to supply energy as well.  This in turn puts Saudi Arabia and OPEC in general in the driver's seat for energy pricing and production.

    This will lead to a greater energy crisis globally than we saw in the 70s.  Which in turn will impact production of everything across the globe, raising costs of food, transportation, etc.

    It was the one-two punch of Russian and American production of oil and gas resources the last 20 years that had allowed us such affordable cheap energy... which in turn allowed the American economy to thrive fairly well despite exporting most of its manufacturing jobs to the rest of the world.

    The damage Biden has done in just two years... is almost incomprehensible... any fears Trump haters had out there, this man is going to bring into reality, and more.

    1. profile image0
      savvydatingposted 19 months agoin reply to this

      As of today, many poor people are in for a long winter. There will be more deaths from cold than you can imagine due to rising energy costs. Now is the time to vote for strong candidates who understand how vital our energy industry is to this nation and poorer nations around the world.

      Just watch what happens in the UK and Germany. Cold deaths will double or triple. It doesn't have to be this way. Voting for independents or moderates will not help the world at this juncture.

      We must think beyond ourselves to help the poor.

      1. abwilliams profile image68
        abwilliamsposted 19 months agoin reply to this

        Amen Savvy!
        It is going to be a dark, cold and deadly winter for so many and it could have been prevented!
        Praying for common sense and decency to make its return, replacing the madness which has been perpetrated on us and on much of the world. {sigh}

      2. CHRIS57 profile image60
        CHRIS57posted 19 months agoin reply to this

        .. Just watch what happens in the UK and Germany. Cold deaths will double or triple ..

        Where please? Not in Europe. European nanny states take care of this issue and avoid it. Specifically in Germany the money set aside for helping the poor through the energy and inflation crisis is roughly 5% of GDP. And this should be quite sufficient.

      3. Nathanville profile image92
        Nathanvilleposted 19 months agoin reply to this

        Yep, Chris is right:

        Over the first six months of this year the UK Government financial aid to help people with the energy and inflation crisis was 1.25% of GDP.  Since then the UK’s Government support has substantially increased, and is likely to be in line with that of Germany e.g. at least 5% of GDP.  During the covid pandemic the UK Government spend on giving financial to everyone in Britain was 10.4% of GDP (the same amount that it costs the UK Government to run the NHS); the NHS being State owned and run, and which is ‘FREE’ to all at the point of use.

        The current financial packages in the UK to held households (including the poor) this winter includes:-

        1.    The UK Government is giving ‘All’ householders (regardless to their income) £400 ($464) towards their electricity bill this winter (which includes me).

        2.    The UK Government has capped energy bills until April, with the Government paying to the Utility Companies the difference between what Utility Companies are allowed to charge their customers (under the cap) and how much Utility Companies are charged for that energy from the gas suppliers.

        3.    The UK Government are paying £150 ($175) to all people on benefits e.g. the low paid, unemployed, and people on disability benefits (and their carers) to help towards the cost of living crisis (inflation), and that includes my wife because she gets disability benefits because of her bad back.

        4.    The UK Government is paying everyone on State Pension (which includes me) an additional £500 ($580) this winter to help towards paying our winter fuel costs.

        5.    This winter, the National Grid will be paying people with ‘smart meters’ (which includes me) to reduce their electricity usage during peak times, to avoid energy shortages e.g. during cold spells when demand for gas will be higher.  The payments are generous e.g. 7 times higher than we’re charged for using electricity per kWh; it’s estimated that householders can earn up to £100 ($116) this winter by using less electricity during peak times.

        1. Miebakagh57 profile image67
          Miebakagh57posted 19 months agoin reply to this

          Awesome!

        2. profile image0
          savvydatingposted 19 months agoin reply to this

          That sounds like a bandaid. Pay more taxes for a tiny bit of compensation for a little bit of time.

          1. Nathanville profile image92
            Nathanvilleposted 19 months agoin reply to this

            Not at all, it’s making good use of taxpayer’s money to provide help were its needed; and everyone benefits – and in the UK that is being done by a Conservative (Capitalist) Government.

            It’s a difference in attitude between ‘European Culture’ and ‘American Culture’ e.g. in Europe our governments like to look after their citizens (everyone); whereas in America it’s a very much more selfish “everyone for themselves” attitude – Perhaps one reason why America has ghettos and Europe doesn’t?

      4. Miebakagh57 profile image67
        Miebakagh57posted 19 months agoin reply to this

        Yes, and sorry that this my comment is coming late on my end side. Besides, I'm an 'outsider'.

    2. abwilliams profile image68
      abwilliamsposted 19 months agoin reply to this

      The progressive mindset of the left/Dems will just blame it on climate change, if that doesn't fly, they'll blame it on the damage done by the previous administration or Russia!
      It's what they do!
      They never take responsibility for the constant damage they do; they have provided 'outs' for themselves, designed to protect them and their  political careers. We the People are the last thing on their minds and YET...many of the people vote for them no matter what!
      God help us!

      1. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 19 months agoin reply to this

        They're extremely comfortable, so what do they care?

        Biden will never take responsibility for the damage he has wrought on the United States and many parts of the world. He is a narcissist. The progressives, whom he serves, believe they are "anointed" and thus know what is best for the common man. Their idiocy would be laughable if it were not so tragic.

        Meanwhile, men quibble over percentages... as if that makes a difference for the elderly who will stay in bed because it is too cold to leave their room.

        The unnecessary and increased suffering of the poor weighs on my mind. The only saving grace is that food organizations will do what they can to feed the poor. However, transporting needed goods to various regions, here and abroad, requires fuel which has been and will become increasingly expensive in a few short months if not weeks.

        If ever there was a time to give to charities, that time is now. Thanks for listening, AB.

        1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
          Fayetteville Fayeposted 19 months agoin reply to this

          "The unnecessary and increased suffering of the poor weighs on my mind. The only saving grace is that food organizations will do what they can to feed the poor

          And what have the conservatives ever done to address poverty? Homelessness? Drug addiction? Mental health issues? The exorbitant cost of prescription drugs?  Our dismal foster care system? The fact that almost 3 million children are homeless in america? They vote anything to address these issues down at every turn. Don't you know, these people are supposed to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, right?
          What was the crown jewel of Mr Trump's administration? A nice big tax cut for the morbidly rich. It doesn't seem to have trickled down to the most needy.  The conservative way seems to be that the unfortunate need to just rely on the kindness of others.

          1. profile image0
            savvydatingposted 19 months agoin reply to this

            You seem to have missed the point. As usual.

            1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 19 months agoin reply to this

              And as usual you don't address a direct question

              1. profile image0
                savvydatingposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                False.

                1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                  Fayetteville Fayeposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  Still no substantial answer. Blah blah blah

          2. DrMark1961 profile image95
            DrMark1961posted 19 months agoin reply to this

            You have a valid point. The Democrats are much more likely to raise taxes on the working class so that they can give the money away to the homeless. The Republicans are trying to build the economy so that people are able to have jobs that pay well and they never become homeless. (Do you remember Trump telling the auto makers that if they moved the jobs to Mexico he was going to make their cars more expensive in the US? That is what making America great again is about.)
            I guess it goes back to philosophy, and whether it is better to prevent or just to deal with the problem later. I could go on, as in preventing a fire or trying to throw some buckets of water on it to put it out, but I am sure you understand the point.

            1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 19 months agoin reply to this

              Well here in America we sort of just keep doing the same thing and expecting that we will have a different result somehow.  We continually mop up after our messes. Seems like we never learn from anyone or anything. That's pretty much my definition of stupid. How about try a little prevention for once? You know why we don't? Because it costs money. It cost nothing for politicians to rail endlessly about nonsense. It costs nothing to scaremonger. You know it's too difficult for a politician to make it these days with an actual stand on something that will make a difference in real people's lives.  Politicians in our country have people baffled, bamboozled and mesmerized with bull sh*t

              1. DrMark1961 profile image95
                DrMark1961posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                Unfortunately that is a worldwide issue. Our Workers Party presidential candidate shot up in the polls after he made a statement at the debates that "When I am elected, the poor will be able to afford to eat filet mignon steaks and have a beer at every meal."

                He bamboozled with Bullsh*t.

              2. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                Well said!  You are absolutely correct in that we do nothing new; just repeat the same things that have repeatedly failed in the forlorn hope that this time will be different.

                Insanity, by definition.

            2. profile image0
              savvydatingposted 19 months agoin reply to this

              You give some here too much credit. The female version of peoplepower, our resident CNN aficionado, will never give you the insights you need if you want the truth. Neither will Al Jazeera, one of your media outlets, which is also biased towards the Left and omits right wing perspective. Furthermore, they appeal to emotion, much like your friend.

              1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                Fayetteville Fayeposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                Still didn't respond to a direct question

            3. Ken Burgess profile image76
              Ken Burgessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

              This is true



              This is false.  While they will use that excuse to take more in taxes, to fund non-profits that exist to help the homeless, to initiate new programs for free stuff... the reality is most of those taxes go to anything but the homeless.

              Proof of this would be the highest taxed state (CA) with the most "progressive" politics, also has a staggering number of homeless people compared with the rest of the country. California’s homeless population last year was almost 165,000, over a quarter of the national total.



              And this is the core difference between the current parties.

              The Democratic Party today exists to make you dependent on them.
              To determine what level of protection you need, what benefits you qualify for, to provide for you... all you need to do is be obedient to their commands and follow their rules, whatever they may be in the current year.

              The Republican Party expects you to provide for yourself, do for yourself, work to make your life better, work with other organizations or groups to make the community better.  They are the party of Liberty, Freedom, less government, less control pro-independence and pro-business.

              Capitalism vs Communism
              Freedom and Liberty vs Tyrannical rule
              Thick Skin vs Safe Spaces
              Hard Work vs Handouts

              30 years ago, the differences didn't seem nearly so extreme save for the Pro-Workers vs Pro-Business aspects of it.  Democrats abandoned the workers (Middle Class) a long time ago.

              1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                Fayetteville Fayeposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                California economy is actually the fourth largest in the entire world. Sooooo????
                https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic … ng-germany

                1. DrMark1961 profile image95
                  DrMark1961posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  Are you implying that it is so large because of the Democrats? I think it is in spite of the Democrats. Maybe it could have been number three.

                2. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  With 10% of the countries population, California boasts 25% of it's homeless.  That was the point, not that California has a lot of money.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image90
                    Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    Not for long, tech companies are pulling out, as are citizens. The writing is on the wall for California.

                3. Sharlee01 profile image90
                  Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  So, let's look at the whys of it ------ Because the whys are very important.

                  It is factual that there are multimillionaires and billionaires in the Bay Area who skew the numbers. and have provided wealth in California.  The rest of  California is struggling to make ends meet, With the highest homeless rate in the country.

                  I must also add,  if the industry continues to leave California due to high costs, continued growth will not be possible. 

                  More and more companies are lining up wanting to take their headquarters to Texas or Florida Georgia,  or somewhere. "So not only are businesses leaving the state, but a record number of people also leaving the state. So, California will see an impact on growth moving forward.  The Democrats have run the big money out, so the tax coffers will suffer.

            4. profile image0
              savvydatingposted 19 months agoin reply to this

              That is inaccurate, and a broad generalization of what the Republican Party stands for. A discussion for another time, perhaps.
              The bigoted history of the Democrats, even to this day, will tell you much of what you need to know. Republicans, in general, are much less self-serving.

              1. DrMark1961 profile image95
                DrMark1961posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                What do you think is inaccurate, that the Republicans are trying to build up the economy and that the Democrats are just raising taxes to give money away to causes they feel will vote for them?

                I think maybe you need to look at the response again.

          3. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

            "The conservative way seems to be that the unfortunate need to just rely on the kindness of others."

            You're right - if the "unfortunate" don't want to hold a job and support themselves they must "rely on the kindness of others". 

            On the other hand, liberals will force that kindness, at gunpoint if necessary, in order to get the wealth they view the "unfortunate" are "entitled" to.  Marxism is alive and well in the liberals of America.

            1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 19 months agoin reply to this

              You have to admit though, wilderness, that we have a lot of folks out here that by way of developmental and mental disabilities can't pull themselves up by their bootstraps. These are the folks that I'm talking about. I think we somehow want to paint a lot of people as lazy and unmotivated. There are certainly some of those out there but we have to be careful with grouping everyone in this category.

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                We do.  And you have to admit that we have even more that could support themselves and choose not to.  Perhaps from laziness, perhaps from poor decisions the public is now expected to pay for, perhaps from an unwillingness to do what is necessary.  Whatever the reason we have millions on welfare that could take care of themselves (and would) if forced to do so.

                When it comes to our welfare system, it is my opinion that it is broken, and severely so.  Those that need help can't get it, while those that have learned to play the system live better than I do.

            2. Ken Burgess profile image76
              Ken Burgessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

              Well said and too obviously true these days.

          4. Sharlee01 profile image90
            Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

            Yes, we have a huge problem with homeless, and drug addiction, as well as a large increase in the poverty rate under this administration. And it is a shame Republicans have needed to vote no on bills that if left without pork could have helped the poor. The Democrats just can't keep from piling their ridiculous pork onto bills. Republicans don't play those games, they just never have.

            The problems will most likely get much worse due to the 2,4 million migrants that Biden let across our borders, we have not yet felt the sting of all the migrants, and the problems that they will bring, needing housing, health care, and education in already overcrowded substandard public schools. Plus we have a record number of drugs pouring in. So, I would assume the drug, homeless, and poverty levels will all become even far worse than they are.

            Faye, I am not sure how you can blame the Republicans for the mess this administration has caused. All got so much worse under Biden, and more is yet to come. Maybe time to put the blame on who caused all to get far worse.

            1. profile image0
              savvydatingposted 19 months agoin reply to this

              Sharlee…You have explained truths, facts and realities more than anyone here. Furthermore, you have done so patiently.

              I have also offered many specific and detailed facts on a number of issues. The problem here is that we are dealing with someone (she/they) who has no interest in facts and who question that truth exists.
              Consequently, no number of facts will ever convince (them) of truth.

              In short, we cannot convince those who deny that truth exists that truth exists. There is only One who can do that.

              However, I respect that forums provide people with the opportunity to express themselves.

              1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                Fayetteville Fayeposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                You are excruciatingly painful

              2. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                Fayetteville Fayeposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                Actually you have offered nothing specific or no detailed facts whatsoever

              3. Sharlee01 profile image90
                Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                I do try to be patient, and yet not back away from my views. It is very frustrating to have a conversation when someone deflects when they become so uncomfortable with another view.

                I must say I am shocked by how closed-minded some can beget, even when facts are presented. I can see one has the right to dispute one's view, but facts, I can't understand that.

                It seems many are more than willing to overlook the mess the current administration has made of the country. With all our growing problems we still have some that will defend those that have caused this mess.

                I am sorry to say my patience is wherein thin, America hangs in the balance, and I am not willing to watch America fall. You know I have encouraged us to all have faith in Americans to right the ship, and that I have great faith the majority recognize the direction we are headed, and will right the ship. 

                I just feel more America have realized that this administration and some media are hell-bent on ruining America. I continue to pray we rid this bunch of a platform, and that we rid ourselves of this administration.

                We need to keep the faith that Americans will step up and show this corrupt bunch the door.

                1. gmwilliams profile image84
                  gmwilliamsposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  There are sheeple who applaud Biden like those Germans who applauded Hitler although Germany was falling.  The same here.  There are people who praise Biden.  Are these people suffering from a lack of reality?  Biden, like Obama, has done absolutely nothing for this country except push insane social programs.  Obama's policies were the reason I voted for Trump.

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    I have not interviewed 61 million people to determine for sure what there reason for voting Trump in 2016 was, but I think your reason was far from being an isolated one.  I know it was my own.

                    The problem was that Obama, and the Democrats had no plan for America...only one to give to those that do not contribute to the country.

                  2. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                    Fayetteville Fayeposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    I'd say that most politicians look at people as sheep.  I think people should be insulted at the way politicians relate. I think we have a small number of politicians on either side of the aisle that have good and honest intentions. The rest are just there to profit from their office and we are in a time that they will do or say anything to keep that power.  There is a whole lot that needs to change about our government. People need to wake up

                  3. Sharlee01 profile image90
                    Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    Grace, you hit the nail on the head. it is very hard to watch everything go downhill, due to the lack of reality some Americans are exhibiting.  I think Obama is pulling Biden's strings.

                  4. Ken Burgess profile image76
                    Ken Burgessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    Obama had faults, but he did some good things as well.
                    Trump had faults, but he did some good things as well.

                    Biden... this guy is fast tracking the damage being done at a breakneck pace, its not incompetence, its arrogance, ego, corruption, whatever he had been in the past  (if you don't believe the stories of rape, molestation, racism and think he was a swell guy)... today he is what I would term a vile callous individual that is a grave threat to America.

            2. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 19 months agoin reply to this

              Sharlee, I am blaming the entire government. The entire political system. Not just your beloved Republican party but all of the entire government. I don't get behind any groupthink, cultish brand.  And government has Hoodwinked all of you, red, blue and purple.  Anarchy is a better solution at this point.

              1. profile image0
                savvydatingposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                “Anarchy is a better solution.”

                Wow.

                That should tell everyone here what they need to know.

                If anyone here does not understand what that means, I feel sorry.

                1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                  Fayetteville Fayeposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  Yep

                2. gmwilliams profile image84
                  gmwilliamsposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  Savvy, the solution is to have an honest, mature & relatable government.  Get out the politicians who really don't care about the constituents & elect people who have connection to everyday life.   There need to be a grassroots movement.

                  1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                    Fayetteville Fayeposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    Viva la revolucion

                  2. Sharlee01 profile image90
                    Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    100% ......

                  3. profile image0
                    savvydatingposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    Progressives, who willingly pretend to be Moderate, will always weaponize guilt effectively. It is their most effective weapon (in the beginning stages). In any event, history has proven that the Progressive agenda is destructive. Well-meaning conservatives fall for it (the guilt game) all the time and so go along and try to be "nice." Stupid.

                    Grassroots movements are effective, but it takes brave citizens to enact change. Today, In Iran, the common people have been protesting against their destructive government for many months. Has Joe Biden said a word to defend them? No. Instead, he is begging the Ayatollah to accept millions of dollars in exchange for compliance. Stupid.

                    Long story short, if we fail to understand the techniques of Progressives, we lose.

              2. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                I'm curious; do you assign any blame at all to the homeless, the addicts, the poverty stricken?

                Do you assign blame to the one that [chose to experiment with drugs, knowing the almost inevitable result?  Do you give some blame to the one that refuses to change locations or develop a skill they can sell for a living wage?  Are those that consistently, over and over, make poor decisions that end up putting them on the street?

                Or is it always someone else that causes people to be addicts, to be poor or homeless, etc.?  Do you assign responsibility to the people for their own life or to a bureaucratic committee somewhere in the bowels of Congress?

                1. gmwilliams profile image84
                  gmwilliamsposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  Thank you.  Most poor people in America CHOOSE to be poor.

                2. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                  Fayetteville Fayeposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  I don't buy into playing the blame game. Let's get these people cleaned up who want to be cleaned up. We can and should do a much better job but at the same time I realize that there will be a portion who don't want to be cleaned up. And there's not much we can do about that. Ignoring these issues isn't the answer. I feel that a lot of people end up on the streets for a multitude of reasons, some of which they had no control over.

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    What would you do with/for those that want to be "cleaned up" (live a life of more luxury), but don't want to put out any effort to do so?  Just want someone else to pay the cost, whether money, effort, work, whatever?  What about them?

          5. Sharlee01 profile image90
            Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

            One response is called for here --- What have Democrats done to address your list?    Offer needles offer the opportunity to live on the streets without any form of hindrance, and allow a historical amount of drugs into the country, actually bringing illegal drug prices down. And let's address foster children. Since President Joe Biden took office, 257,110 migrant children have been encountered at the nation’s borders, according to data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection.  And we know have the responsibility to find foster care for these children.

            You are ignoring how much worse all of the above has become due to an incompetent administration, and cognitively impaired President.

            And in regard to the Trump taxes, that you feel have been harmful --- why has the Democratic Congress not offered new taxes? Why, because it was working to put money into a larger population of Americans.

            The who you call morbidly rich were offering a record number of jobs before COVID hit, and many were starting to invest here in America.

            And let me remind you Biden has talked about; lowering prescription drugs, but doing nothing to bring about these promised reductions. He has signed a couple of meaningless Zero teeth EO's. Nothing more.

            Let's look at some stats, and see truely what has occurred under Biden.

            Price Increases for Prescription Drugs, 2016-2022

            KEY POINTS
            • High prescription drug prices create affordability challenges for patients and the health care
            system. Among existing products, increases in average prices over time have added to these
            challenges.
            • Most prescription drug price increases occur in either January or July each year, with the greatest
            number taking place in January. The number of increases in both months during 2022 was higher
            than in previous years.
            • In January 2022, the average price increase was nearly $150 per drug (10.0 percent), and in July
            2022, it was $250 (7.8 percent). The dollar increases were larger than for the same months in
            previous years.
            • In 2022, several drugs increased their list prices by more than $20,000 or by more than 500
            percent.
            • There were 1216 products whose price increases during the twelve-month period from July 2021
            to July 2022 exceeded the inflation rate of 8.5 percent for that time period. The average price
            increase for these drugs was31.6 percent.
            • The Inflation Reduction Act introduces a new requirement for manufacturers to pay rebates to Medicare for Part D drugs whose price increases exceed inflation, beginning October 1, 2022,
            which was designed to reduce the frequency and size of drug price increases. ( so do you have Medicare?) Has Biden really brought prices down for all Americans? NO ---- yet he wanders around and claims he has.

            Maybe instead of asking what did Trump do ask what has Biden done?

            What did Trump do
            https://imprintnews.org/analysis/what-a … fare/44792
            https://www.acf.hhs.gov/media/press/202 … tive-order

            1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 19 months agoin reply to this

              I believe that the inflation reduction act includes several provisions to lower prescription drug costs for people with Medicare and reduce drug spending by the federal government. The government will now be able to negotiate lower drug prices on many drugs. I believe it also puts a cap on insulin at $35 a month which is great news for those who have been rationing their insulin or forgoing it all together.  Wow I would like to see either party do more than has been done on all the issues previously mentioned I believe that the Democrats are generally do a better job addressing them.   Democrats through time have brought us social security, medicare, medicaid, disability benefits veterans benefits, healthcare by way of Obama care.
              Government, regardless of red or blue needs to continue to address these pressing issues within our country. We as voting citizens need to hold all of them accountable and stop letting them treat us like idiots.  They insult our intelligence at every turn with the divisiveness, the empty rhetoric and so on.   I'm growing just as tired of a segment of the American population that lets this garbage fly just as much as I am at the politicians who perpetrate it.  And before you try to pin it on a group I'm targeting, I'll say that idiocy knows no boundary.

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                Every one of your list is no more than a method of taking from one to give to another.  Even SS, which was not supposed to work that way.

                Is there something Democrats have done for the people that does not involve, as the root of the plan, simply giving what one person earns to someone that didn't earn it?

                That's my primary beef with liberals; at the root lies Marxism and spreading the wealth from those that produce to those that do not.

              2. Sharlee01 profile image90
                Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                "I believe that the inflation reduction act includes several provisions to lower prescription drug costs for people with Medicare and reduce drug spending by the federal government'

                Yes, in my comment I have offered just that. However, the majority of Americans are not on Medicare.  Medicare serves  63 million beneficiaries,  So, not sure Biden should be misrepresenting that he will lower drug costs for all Americans. I do realize he does offer a lot of misinformation.

                Well, I disagree, I do not feel Democrats have done anything on the issues you mentioned, and the Republicans win no medals either.

                Yes, I can see you are as tired of one side, as I am.  I believe this is where the divide is evident. I will never understand what makes you feel those on the right do not feel as strongly as you and support a different agenda altogether.  It should now be very evident. I don't think conservatives were looking for such strife between the two parties, but we are concerned like never before about the direction the Country is headed.

      2. Miebakagh57 profile image67
        Miebakagh57posted 19 months agoin reply to this

        God, will surely help Americans. Amen.

        1. abwilliams profile image68
          abwilliamsposted 19 months agoin reply to this

          But, will Americans surely ask?

          1. Miebakagh57 profile image67
            Miebakagh57posted 19 months agoin reply to this

            Certain will. And that's great.

            1. abwilliams profile image68
              abwilliamsposted 19 months agoin reply to this

              :-) I love your optimism!

    3. CHRIS57 profile image60
      CHRIS57posted 19 months agoin reply to this

      Aren´t you largely overestimating the influence of American power? Especially in nations like China, India and Russia?

      Yes, the era of globalism is faltering. But due to what? Certainly not because of some blue or red person in charge of American politics.

      Supply chains were interrupted by the Corona pandemic in the first place. If the whole "productive" world is coming to a full stop for a year or so, this has massive impact on global trade.

      Chinese economy has its own and purely internal problems. Russian economy the same. Huge internal problems with massive corruption. Did America initiate this? I don´t think so.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image76
        Ken Burgessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

        Not at all, it seems you and Nathanville are woefully underestimating the impact America has had on the Global Free Trade world that exists today.

        Who is it that has (or had) troops stationed in Korea, Germany, Egypt, Iceland, Philippines, and so many other places I can't remember off the top of my head, not to mention our deployments to Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

        Who do you think is running this World if not America?

        China would still be a backwater country with 1.5 billion rice harvesters if not for America gutting its own Industrial Base and shifting it over to China.

        This of course made companies like Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Black Rock obscenely wealthy and powerful, even Warren Buffett got in on the act.

        Without "Western" investment into China, without AMERICA purchasing everything 'Made In China' over the last 30 years... China would be nothing.

        Russia on the other hand, has had to struggle against American interference since WWII.  Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union efforts to thwart Russia has been ongoing.

        America destroyed the countries that still relied on Russia as an ally and trade partner, America injected itself into the governmental machinations of Georgia and Ukraine, America made sure NATO let in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia back in 2002, soon after Putin first became President and Russia began breaking from Western centric 'guidance' under his leadership.

        As for India, it has been a non-factor for the most part on the global trade stage as well as in the Industrial and Military sectors, only now is it beginning to become relevant, and honestly, I haven't studied it for the simple fact that it hasn't been a factor.



        It certainly is.

        Biden's choice to back Zelensky (I think its more that Zelensky was told to rattle his saber and start his quest) in Ukraine's effort to take back Crimea  and  Biden's refusal to recognize Crimea as part of the Russian Federation set us on a course for war.

        Russia had done nothing until AFTER that Biden announcement to escalate "the war".

        There was the Minsk Agreements, since then, Donbas has been a contested region... Ukraine could have easily asked America for aide in bringing that conflict to a resolution agreeable to bout Ukraine and Russia.

        That's not what Biden wanted.  Biden stated in 2014 that Russia would pay, that Russia would be forced to give up Crimea.  Despite Obama not being willing to go to war over it, Biden was over in Ukraine promising it as VP.

        This is all about Biden, this is all about the warhawks in DC salivating for this war.  This is exactly what those who control DC today have always wanted.  They loathe Trump for making them have to wait an extra 5 years to get their war.

        Clearly after 8 years... 8 years... of Crimea being part of the Russian Federation, not some occupied territory, not some hell hole warzone, but a peaceful, well functioning part of Russia, there was no reason for this war.



        That has nothing to do with Europe being cut off from Russian Oil and Gas.

        That has nothing to do with the world being cut off from the primary supplier of Fertilizer, Neon, and many other materials critical to today's world.

        That's the problem with a very integrated 'globalized' world, when you are reliant on other nations for supplies critical to your living conditions and economy, and then you decide to war against them and 'sanction' them, you end up hurting your own people, or the entire world, as much as you do them.

        Thinking this war is not the PRIMARY reason why Europeans especially are going to suffer this winter is an egregious misunderstanding of the situation.

        Beyond this winter, China will begin suffering immensely for it too, as they get a considerable amount of energy resources and food from Russia and Ukraine.

        You know who won't suffer much from this war, and whose gas/energy and military industrial companies will probably make quit a profit from it?

        America's.

        1. CHRIS57 profile image60
          CHRIS57posted 19 months agoin reply to this

          I don´t underestimate the military importance and influence of the USA. But it is something else with the economy.

          Size matters, and that is what pushed the USA almost to the top in world trade (China is ahead though). But almost 20% of that US trade is attributed to energy resources exports. Then another portion of trade is associated to military stuff. What is left over is less than the EU contributes to world trade or is at par with countries like Germany or Japan.

          The American era is coming to an end, not because of its military power, that is unchallenged, but because its impact on world trade has dwarfed from some 60% in the 60ties to less than 15% today.

          It didn´t take the Corona pandemic or the Ukraine war to get there. This is a decade long process and has nothing to do with any particular American president.

          Today it takes diplomatic skills and shrewedness to impose something like the oil price cap. The USA can not just snap their fingers to enforce it.

          1. Ken Burgess profile image76
            Ken Burgessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

            I see that as well, you and I are not that far apart in what we are saying.

            I am not saying America is all powerful at this moment, though it still is militarily, I am saying the Global Free Trade world that we have enjoyed for so many years... especially in the last 30+ years... has been because of America.

            China became #1 in the world because American investors and American Corporations chose to develop China and use its cheap labor, chose to make obscene fortunes from "Made In China".

            Without the American government giving China "Favored Nation Status"  allowing their products to enter into America tariff free there would be no China today capable of rivaling America.

            Without the American government allowing its Industrial base to be hollowed out allowing for all forms of production to be shifted to China so that corporations could make mad profits, China would not be near as Industrialized as it is today.

            America has allowed Japan, Europe, and China especially to flourish for the last 30 to 50 years.  They have provided the stability globally for trade and international corporations to flourish as much as they have.

            Until now.  Now who knows where our leaders today are trying to take things but escalating a war with Russia and/or China is not what I would deem good for any population of any country.

            And it certainly isn't good for global trade, or cheaper better products being available. 

            What it is, IMO, is the onset of shortages in technologically advanced products, food products, and energy products.

            I hope I am wrong, I hope things improve, but I think they are holding off just how bad things are getting until after the mid-terms... then look out America and look out world.

            1. CHRIS57 profile image60
              CHRIS57posted 19 months agoin reply to this

              ...holding off just how bad things are getting until after the mid-terms....

              I think the world as a whole has gotten used to changes in American politics every 4 to 8 years.

              Things are not always comfortable. But again the world got used to this and understands that mighty policeman can´t be everywhere.

              By the way, they only importance of the USA for China is the US consumer market. But this is a twosided sword. If i am not totally wrong, the US imports some 2% of its GDP (some 13% of production) from China but for China this represents only 1% of exports (or some 6% of production). Cutting into Chinese flesh hurts the US more than China.

              But China has problems of its own with their credit bubble and associated real estate bubble. People won´t remain quiet if the path to wealth is only open to half of its population in more remote places.

              Russia is drowning in its huge corruption problems. The authoritarian style of regime doesn´t help to make this transparent and solve the problems, more likely increases it. And the war with Ukraine makes this disfunctional cleptocracy only more visible.

              1. Ken Burgess profile image76
                Ken Burgessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                Chris, you are talking about today.

                What I am talking about is almost 50 years of America transferring its industrial base and wealth to China.

                This is what allowed China to become a rival on the global stage of the world.  If America had not allowed that, if America had not kept the world a relatively peaceful place to do business, China would have never become what it is today.

                America bought all "Made in China" products for decades... in essence it transferred its jobs, its industrial might, and its wealth to China.

                China's exports to the US were typically about 18-20% of China's total exports, before dropping lower in the Trump era trade war.

                China's exports to the US were as high as 9% of China's GDP back in 2007.

                Since Trump, Chinese exports to the US are less than 4% and dropping, and so too, is their economy.

                China's top trading partners where China has a positive trade balance:

                1. United States: $324 billion
                2. Hong Kong: $295 billion
                3. The Netherlands: $61 billion
                4. India: $58 billion
                5. The United Kingdom: $33 billion

                Hong Kong technically is part of China, so, clearly if you remove Hong Kong then America is overwhelmingly, even today, China's largest inflow of wealth.

                https://hubstatic.com/16212625_f1024.jpg


                America dominated most of world trade in 1980, China has gradually taken on a greater role, surpassing the U.S. as the major trading partner in many countries around the world. None of that would have been possible without America allowing it.

                1. CHRIS57 profile image60
                  CHRIS57posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  To describe trade relations, don´t we have to add up imports and exports and not talk about trade balance (which is actually the opposite, a subtraction)?

                  Anyways - world trade as a sum of imports and exports amounts to some 55 to 60% of world GDP. If this world trade is interrupted, no wonder why most economies struggle, especially those with high dependence on trade.

                  And here you find the real clue to the problem. USA trade(in and out) over GDP is some 20..25%, Germany´s trade (in and out) over GDP for example is some 75%. And the energy resource part is only a small piece of the trade cake. This is why the USA can sit back (be less effected) and strong trade dependend countries like Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium suffer dearly.

                  At the end of the day (today) the USA is at less than 15% of world trade. And this is what bends the American era to an end. Not Ukraine, not Russia, not China, not even Corona, and certainly not any American president. The world is simply changing, we might say the growing and prospering in comparison to the USA status quo. I would say this is a good thing.

    4. peterstreep profile image80
      peterstreepposted 19 months agoin reply to this

      And not once did you name Climate Crisis.
      Overconsumption and the use of carbon resources brought us to this point.
      We produce to much, ship to much and spoil to much.
      It is clear that the economic growth has been a burden and a threat to humanity.
      What has to be done is change our mentality. And change a growth economy into a sustainable economy.
      As their simply won't be enough resources as it has a limit. A growth economy will collapse simply because resources do not grow but are finite.
      What has to be done is to drastically downscale economics. And go back to local produce and manufacturing of goods.

      It is not Bidens fault that we are heading to a crisis. This crisis is in the making since the 60's and probably before. As with the enormous production of goods and use of fosil fuels we changed the climate and now we are in the middle of the next extinction of animals and plants (and possibly humans too!)
      So Trump is definitely not an option and all the politicians who support fossil fuels and a growth economy (And so Biden is not an option either)
      The climate crisis is only getting worse causing wars and mass immigration, famine (no more fish to catch, no more bees to fertilize crops etc) and diseases (COVID was just the beginning), water shortage, more forest fires and extreme climate that will kill local species.
      The biggest issue on the political has to be the climate crisis, and the party who gives it the most serious attention gets my vote. And as most of the Republicans are still in the denial stage it is simply irresponsible to vote Republican.

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

        "The biggest issue on the political has to be the climate crisis"

        Disagree.  It isn't climate change, it isn't economics and it isn't scarcity of natural resources.  It is the reproductive rate of humans; if the entire world reproduced at the rate Americans (or Brits or some others) are those problems would go away on their own.

        But they won't, with the result that every year the species demands more energy, more food, more things.

        1. peterstreep profile image80
          peterstreepposted 19 months agoin reply to this

          Although the best service to the world at the moment is not to have children, (Tell that to the anti-abortion voters...) It is not the main problem.

          The main problem is how we (the West and China, India, Brasil) use our resources. How we use the land.
          A child in the west uses more resources then a child born in a developing country!
          It surprises me again and again how a tiny country like The Netherlands is the 2nd largest food exporter (after the US) in the world.
          So I think it's not a matter of population but a matter of efficiency in production and logistics. How much food is not thrown away before it reaches the shops (because a tomatoe has to have a certain size and colour..), and how much is not thrown away if not sold? Same with other products.
          To say that it's to blame for the fact that there are too many people is a dangerous argument as it gives the blame to us consumers and not the producers of fossil fuel products (which is almost everything!).
          It's consumerism that needs to be stopped, and as many noticed during COVID time, we don't need all the stuff we thought we needed.

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

            *shrug* with 1/10th the world's population we would not have a problem.  There wouldn't be climate change, there would be enough food, enough wood, enough steel, enough everything.

            And when we reach double the current population all of those will be in very short supply.  Resources, all resources, are limited and when that limit is spread among increasingly large numbers of people, well, someone is going to go without and the world as a whole will suffer at the same time.

            The blame IS consumers - if they did not demand more, producers (whether fossil fuel products or food or anything else) will not be producing more.  To put blame on people meeting a demand is ridiculous; without the demand those same people will find another way of supporting themselves.

            Never forget that not everyone thinks as you do, not everyone has the same moral structure, not everyone has the same goals you do.  People differ, and as long as there are more and more people there will be more and more people that disagree with how you think.

            1. peterstreep profile image80
              peterstreepposted 19 months agoin reply to this

              A good answer Wilderness. Which I fully agree with.
              (except for the point that it is besides consumers also producers who are to blame. It's a two way street.)

              But as the climate crisis unfolds, it seems to me sensible to make this priority number one in politics. But instead you see politicians doing ostrich politics and go on if nothing out of the ordinary is taking place. It is where politics and science clash with deadly results.

              That being said, I think politicians are simply incapable of understanding the science behind climate chance and what to do about it, as their background is all to often lacking any understanding of science.
              And....you've got billions of dollars from all kinds of hedge funds and companies directing their decisions...

              It will be a harsh world for the teenagers of today when they reach there 30-40s...

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                My point is that you can make climate change a priority all you want to...but until you curb the population growth it isn't going to do a bit of good.  Even if we eliminated 90% of fossil fuels tomorrow, they will be right back in a decade because of the increased demand for energy.  People are simply not going to accept a big drop in standard of living because of dire predictions (few of which come true) from scientists in a science they do not understand.

                But if you can make a priority of cutting population growth (no idea how - China tried it a failed miserably) and it works, then the rest will take care of itself.

                1. peterstreep profile image80
                  peterstreepposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  I'm afraid your right. But I think you have two options here. Accept that we are doomed and will take 70% or so of the living species with us in our downfall. Which is the probable scenario.
                  Or at least we give it a try and minimalize the damage, trying to buy time.

                  But to deny climate change and promote fossil fuel is in my opinion the worst thing you can do as a human being and politician.
                  But well as you say, it's difficult to change some peoples mind even if you have the facts in your side.

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    See, now I just don't get that 70% of living species thing.  That's a part of the terrible predictions from the scientists...predictions that we've seen for a decade and never come true. 

                    Truth is that some species will die, some will be created, and life will continue.  It will continue with humanity, although probably a lot fewer.

                    Yeah, we can buy time, and I personally agree that we need to cut fossil fuel usage.  We have, and will continue to have, a much better use for oil than to burn it.  But that does NOT mean that we should, tomorrow, cut usage to the point that people suffer greatly from it, and that's exactly what the greenies are demanding.

                  2. DrMark1961 profile image95
                    DrMark1961posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    When someone comes along with this "70%" and then another comes along and qoutes it they are setting themselves up to look stupid. Do you even realize that most of the known species are insects, nematodes, and other animals that are not going to be affected by climate change? If you want to say 70% of amphibians and wild mammal species, that is fine. If you want to claim that 70% of species are going to die because of global warming, I want to remind you of the predicition that all of Florida will be underwater by the year 2000. (I read that prediction about 40 years ago.)
                    By making those sort of false predictions, you are giving climate change deniers an easy thing to refute. If that person has something they can easily refute, why should they accept anything you have to say?

          2. gmwilliams profile image84
            gmwilliamsposted 19 months agoin reply to this

            Good evening Mr. Streep, people in the post-industrialized nations are opting to having no children or very small families. That is the highly educated solidly middle, particularly upper middle, & upper classes.  It is always the less educated lower, working, & lower middle classes who have the most children. You should read the book AND THE POOR HAVE CHILDREN, don't know the author-it is dated book if you can find it.  The intelligent classes are using family planning while the less educated classes are out of control.   Yes, there are too many people in the world which accounts for the poverty levels in many parts of the world.  What is needed are stringent family planning policies which include mandatory sterilization after the second child.

            1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 19 months agoin reply to this

              "mandatory sterilization after the second child."

              Yes, the Hallmark of a free society! My oh my.  And the only qualifications   for a forced medical procedure are  being poor and dumb?   Would there be an IQ test? How would these poor dumb women be rooted out to have their tubes tied?  Family planning police? Morality police like they have in Iran?

              1. Ken Burgess profile image76
                Ken Burgessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                Are you saying you don't believe in Eugenics?

                How else are we to determine who has ten children and who has none?

                How are we going to find a system beneficial to human civilization and society?

                Hmmm... create a Carbon Tax system rolled out world wide, where what you produce and how well you service your society equates to how much you are taxed or negates those taxes.

            2. peterstreep profile image80
              peterstreepposted 19 months agoin reply to this

              There may be more people in the poor countries in the world, but it is the rich world that has the most impact on climate change. One ordinary person in New York uses far more resources than 10 in a small village in China.

              And oh boy, do we have the religious people who are against abortion, they don't help to solve the climate crisis with this concept.

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                "One ordinary person in New York uses far more resources than 10 in a small village in China."

                Are you sure?  How much does that villager in Brazil, happily felling acre after acre of rain forest, add to the problem?  The island family fishing, but for hundreds/thousands of fish per day instead of a dozen or so?

                1. peterstreep profile image80
                  peterstreepposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  Yes, don't you think so? (the 1 on 10 is not a real number, it was as a matter of speaking) But if you compare all the children living in developed countries with all the children living in developing countries. Then for sure (haven't looked it up, but read an article about it) those "rich" kids will consume more and by doing so use more resources. (food, electronic stuff, clothing, electricity, stuff you have (toothbrushes, chairs, extension cords,  etc.)

                  There may be exceptions as you point out with the villager in Brasil, but the huge majority is not having such an impact on the environment as we in the west. (and often the reason for the destruction of the environment is because we want the new iPhone built in a Chinese factory, or a beefburger from cows eating soya on a former rainforest patch.)

                  I think if we really want to do something, the best thing (next to not having children) is to consume less. (not every month new clothes or every year a new phone..) But well, say that to a teenager...

      2. Ken Burgess profile image76
        Ken Burgessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

        Climate Crisis - to me is more of a pollution crisis.

        FYI we are going to die off from plastic poisoning before climate change ever has a chance to claim us.  They don't talk at all about that catastrophe in the making, but the food chains in the oceans are all going to fail because of it, the level of plastics in our bloodstreams is a significant cause of disease and death, and not just in humans.

        The focus of Climate Change, Carbon emissions etc. is so that the populace has been groomed to accept Carbon Tax.

        This is coming, soon, to all 'industrialized nations'.  Once we have gone to digital wallets (this is set to occur in America in June/July of the coming year... can't wait to see what calamity they create/use to make the excuse for it)... they can then begin tracking all we purchase, all we consume, and assign a Carbon Tax to it.

        This Carbon Tax will be the new Credit Score, Social Score, perhaps even your Police Record all rolled into one.  What you are allowed to do, or not allowed to do, will depend immensely on this system.

        When they are actually rolled out, internationally, it likely will be named different things in different countries. But for an idea of what this will be like, one only has to look to China and its non-cash identity based system to get a glimpse of how it will work... and how a person can be totally de-personed if they do not conform.

        1. peterstreep profile image80
          peterstreepposted 19 months agoin reply to this

          You've got a point there. Wouldn't surprise me either that instead of solving the problem, they (politicians, corp, and the powers that be) will monetize the problem.

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

            They already have, with the huge subsidies and "help" to renewable energy sources.  Sources that, somehow, get paid for but seldom built.

            1. peterstreep profile image80
              peterstreepposted 19 months agoin reply to this

              Don't touch that subject Wilderness.
              We are here in the middle of the process to fight against huge solar farms that we will get in the backyard. Good almond and olive fields will be cut down, irrigation ways and bird habitats destroyed for huge solar farms that are not built out of ideological reasons but to speculate. The firm is Italiën and the hedge fund Israeli. So non of the profit will go to Spain. The Local area will be destroyed and a village completely surrounded by an ugly landscape of reflecting black squares.
              I'm all for solar power (got it myself) but why not build it on the roofs and let everybody control their own energy...(oh no, that's far too dangerous, make people independent of energy...)
              And I'm not against solar plants either, but build it in the desert. And give (well paid of course) the energy to the people. But don't use it as a speculation scheme and abandon it after 8 years when the profit is taken and the landscape and ecosystem destroyed.

              1. DrMark1961 profile image95
                DrMark1961posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                Are you familiar with the solar plant in Ouarzazate, Morocco? It was land that was good for almost nothing, certainly not able to handle almond or olive orchards, and it was converted into a huge solar plant. (I am not certain how much of that electricity is exported though.)

                I certainly agree that the best solar plants should be on top of houses though, although for many people paying a monthly bill to the electricity company is possible, whereas investing in a solar unit for the house is not.

                1. peterstreep profile image80
                  peterstreepposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  Yes, I've seen pictures of the solar plant in Marocco. And I think it's a great opportunity to use this land in such a way.
                  In the Netherlands, they have a system where you generate electricity with the panels on your roof. You consume what you "harvest" and if you have more you sell it to the electricity company. (and if you fall short you buy)
                  So you don't have batteries. I think this is a far better solution than the massive solar plants.

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    I see two problems with the rooftop systems. 

                    1) It is unlikely to receive periodic, needed maintenance.  From simple cleaning to minor repairs, it isn't going to get them.

                    2) Without storage capabilities, there will still be a need for the same level of power generation ability we now have.  That's a massive waste of resources, just to be able to produce twice the power you need, and one result will inevitably be that the generation capability is allowed to fall below what is needed.  Whereupon that country will see blackouts in long storms or other events that block sunlight.

          2. Ken Burgess profile image76
            Ken Burgessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

            Of course, its all about profit, power and control.

            They want to create Digital Wallets because this allows them complete control.  You will not be able to escape the system.

            With cash you can work under the table, you can have cash stored in a vault that no government entity knows about, it allows freedom and liberty that a Digital Wallet will strip from you.

            Once Digital Wallets are the new accepted currency system, the government will always know what funds you have available, and the government will easily be able to take those funds away from you, freeze your assets, strip you of your ability to purchase travel or food.

            From there a Carbon Tax is then placed on everything you eat, everywhere you travel, every degree cooler or warmer you keep your home, nothing purchased or consumed will be private, all will be subject to the Carbon Tax.

            In order to track and enforce consumptions and expenses for Carbon Tax you need to have all transactions tied to one's Digital Wallet.

            1. peterstreep profile image80
              peterstreepposted 19 months agoin reply to this

              To be honest, I trust the government more than private companies. As private companies can bend the rules quickly and easily.
              We are more controlled by companies who overrule local governments than the other way around.

              But yeah, the digital wallet is a trap. In the 2008 crisis, it was thanks to work paid by cash that kept Spain afloat. There was a massive unemployment, but people still could work for some cash in the fields or do some other small jobs here and there. It would have been a complete disaster if society was only based on Digital Wallets.

        2. Nathanville profile image92
          Nathanvilleposted 19 months agoin reply to this

          Ken, Climate Crisis is more than just a pollution crisis, and is far more serious than microplastics.

          Although it’s currently unknown how harmful microplastics are, research has shown that bottle-fed babies swallow millions of microplastic particles each day e.g. a similar level of exposure we all get from our food, water and the air now; and yet although hundreds of millions of bottle-fed babies have been exposed to microplastics for many decades it hasn’t caused a national crisis in any country – whereas Climate Change is destroying land and lives and causing deaths right now.

          This year alone, land in parts of the third world has been lost to the sea, displacing the local population; even in Wales a village is being abandoned to the sea because of rising sea levels – and it’s only going to get worse.

          This year alone, Europe, Britain and large parts of the USA suffered record breaking heatwaves that not only caused water shortages and wildfires, but also deaths from heat stroke on an unprecedented scale.

          In Europe alone these summers (record breaking heatwave) led to over 53,000 excess deaths (3,271 excess deaths in Britain). 

          It’s not just the heatwaves, but also the droughts, wildfires, floods, and in the USA the significant increase in severity and frequency of hurricanes, all causing misery, deaths, destruction and loss to property.

          So as serious as plastic poisoning is, Climate Change is far more serious.   But focusing on tackling one isn’t at the exclusion of the other; governments around the world, including the UK Government are tackling both plastic pollution and Climate Change.

          •    2022: Wildfires rip through the UK amid record-breaking heatwave https://youtu.be/zQ4wEx9v7_I

          •    2022: UK Heatwave: Firefighters tackle 'absolute hell' https://youtu.be/H2bxvd2URQ0

          1. Ken Burgess profile image76
            Ken Burgessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

            Not to belittle any suffering ongoing due to water erosion or other natural disasters, but this has ALWAYS been the way the world works.

            It gets cold (The Little Ice Age or Mini Ice Age is an interesting study the early 1700s was one of the coldest periods in recorded Chinese history).

            You can find lost cities of antiquity under water all across the world, Shicheng China, Thonis Greece, Heracleion Eqypt.

            And it gets hot. 

            Does man have an impact on it, absolutely, humanity does.

            Would the world remain stagnant, with coastal villages being safe, with temperatures remaining constant if man produced no pollution?

            No it would not.

            It would not come close to remaining constant.

            What are we to do then... are we going to give up civilization's technologies and stop using Energy?

            What we are talking about here is Energy... what powers one's home, the Internet, Hospital equipment, Communications equipment, transportation, farm equipment, the world as we know it, civilization and society as we know it, relies on the cheapest energy available to stay alive.

            When it comes to Climate Change what good exactly does Carban Tax do?

            Where do those proceeds go?

            How does it impact global warming?

            1. Miebakagh57 profile image67
              Miebakagh57posted 19 months agoin reply to this

              The Solar Sun, is the primary form of energy for the planet Earth. All othes are secondary.                                        Yes, look all around you...and you will see that flowering plants or vegetations, and animals (human being inclusive)  depends on the Sun for energy.                                   Fortunately, fire, instead of electricity, fosssil fuels, solar, and turbo or waterfalls is discovered first for cocking and a means of lighting at night.                                     Fortunately again, it took thousands of years for solar and renewale energy to be discovered. Why was not carbon tax in vague when petroleum was discovered?  Why now when renewable energy is about to replaced gas in 15 years time, in some advaneced economies? Why?                                  Seriously, climate change is a reality. Unfortunately, it was the negative activities of humans that cause these changes I think we're here to stay with these climate changes?

              1. profile image0
                savvydatingposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                There is old renewable energy, like wood and hydropower and new renewable energy like wind and solar.
                By 2040, according to the IEA, wind and solar will cover under 5% of global energy needs.
                We cannot solve climate change or energy needs with wind and solar because neither provide reliable energy. Furthermore, it is outrageously expensive.

                Consequently, these high prices coming from new policies regarding renewable energy will cause the death of many people. If we cannot afford to heat our homes in the dead of a cold winter, we die.

                1. abwilliams profile image68
                  abwilliamsposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  Amen Savvy, thank you for staying on point about what really matters and what is really at stake, due to progressive leftist ideology and these wacky notions and plans of theirs, the true culprit as to what makes people.....dead!!

                  1. profile image0
                    savvydatingposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    AB, Even if the U.S. were to go to zero fossil fuels from today onward (which is impossible, actually) by 2100, we would have reduced the temperature by only 0.33 degrees Fahrenheit. So, in essence, we would have spent trillions for nothing.
                    It is much better to grow our GDP. Rich nations produce healthier people who live longer and more fulfilling lives.

                    Rich nations can also address health, energy, and education for poor nations.

                2. Miebakagh57 profile image67
                  Miebakagh57posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  Presure group must be pressurized to mount Legislature against those bad political policies in the form of protest and civil unrest.                                     Energy whether solar or renewable, is not produced and reserved for the rich alone.                                    That's telling me that the poor shouldn't ride in any bus or car.

                  1. profile image0
                    savvydatingposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    My point is that wind and solar energy are pretty much ineffective for both rich and poor.
                    We would be better off finding other energy solutions. For now, we need fossil fuels.

                3. Nathanville profile image92
                  Nathanvilleposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  Really?  I’d like to see where “By 2040, according to the IEA, wind and solar will cover under 5% of global energy needs.”

                  According to this link to the IEA website, the IEA paint a different, more positive, picture:  https://www.iea.org/fuels-and-technologies/renewables

                  We can solve climate change and meet our energy needs with wind and solar power as part of the Green Energy Mix; we are already doing it in the UK, and many EU countries – part of the secret is building resilience into the system, such as by storing energy when there’s a surplus and releasing the stored energy when required – the technology for this in Europe is far more sophisticated and advanced than you can imagine e.g. Green hydrogen and the Electric mountain in Wales etc.

                  Britain's Largest Battery  https://youtu.be/McByJeX2evM

                  And FYI, Renewable Energy in Europe is no longer outrageously expensive; in fact since 2016 in Europe it’s become cheaper than fossil fuels.  Yeah, when first developing the technology, the systems, the infrastructure and supply chains, and upgrading the National Grid, there is a lot of Initial Capital Investment; but once established unlike conventional fossil fuel power stations that burn coal, oil or gas, the energy from the sun and wind is FREE – windfarms and solar farms don’t need to keep feeding them with expensive fuel to generate electricity, the sun and wind is free; whereas, to keep the fossil fuel power stations fed you need to constantly supply them with gas, oil or coal to keep them burning.

                  1. profile image0
                    savvydatingposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    How much sun do you have in the UK? Are you not concerned about your upcoming cold winter? How will solar help you then?

              2. Nathanville profile image92
                Nathanvilleposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                Thanks for your comments Miebakagh.  Actually, in general we should work towards discarding hydrocarbons; the biproduct of extracting and burning hydrocarbons is the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that causes climate change and leads to global warming.

                And discarding hydrocarbons can be done.  For example, the Conservative Government in the UK in the 1980s closed down the coal mining industry, so now Britain sits on huge reserves of coals that will never get used; the Scottish Government banned fracking in Scotland in 2015 and the UK Government banned fracking in England in 2019, so currently the UK is sitting on huge reserves of oil and gas that may never get used.

                1. Miebakagh57 profile image67
                  Miebakagh57posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  Arthur, I've hint moments ago that these reserves of hydrocarbon fuels may need sort of technology to work them into another energy or renewable?                                      But Nigeria is still sitting on huge coal reserves as Britain, since the steam engine was phased out more than 3 decades ago. Nevertheless, coal as a domestic fuel was presently used by roast  food makers...corn-on-the-cob, plantain, yam, fresh fish, etc.                                              Your inputs found me well.

                  1. Nathanville profile image92
                    Nathanvilleposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    Yeah, "carbon capture" is the only technology that could be used with hydrocarbon fuels to prevent CO2 from escaping into the atmosphere; but it's an expensive technology that's in its early stages of development, and then you've got the problem of how and where to store the CO2 to prevent it from leaking into the atmosphere - Renewable Energy is much cleaner and much cheaper, and good for the economy because of all the jobs it creates e.g. Renewable Energy is big business in Europe and China, creating a lot of wealth.

            2. Nathanville profile image92
              Nathanvilleposted 19 months agoin reply to this

              Yeah, yeah, yeah…. I’m not talking about natural disasters – Anthropogenic Climate Change.

              There’s little we can do about natural climate change – But there is a lot we could do about Anthropogenic Climate Change; specifically reduce the burning of fossil fuels by transitioning to Renewable Energy before we reach the tipping point of no return.

              The Earth’s wobbles on its spin-axis (obliquity) is a 26,000 year cycle, and the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit around the sun changes shape every 100,000 (both of which are well understood by scientists) and both of which has a dramatic effect on climate change.  Yes, it was a lot hotter when the dinosaurs and a lot colder during the ice ages:  Neither extreme would be conducive to humans, survival would be harsh, modern civilisation wouldn’t flourish, and potentially the risk of becoming extinct, as so many of the other humanoid species, including Neanderthal, have done in the past. 

              Obviously we’ve always had coastal erosions and changes in sea levels, with human communities being lost to the sea; that is something humans had no control over.  What we have now is accelerated rising sea levels, and weather events, as a direct result of burning fossil fuels; and it’s a disaster that could be limited by quickly transitioning from fossil fuels to Renewable Energy. 

              I take it you’re oblivious to the climate change disasters in countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan this year; or is it that you just don’t care?

              Where you say “What are we to do then... are we going to give up civilization's technologies and stop using Energy?”  No of course not:  We need to transition away from fossil fuels and towards Renewable Energy as a matter of urgency.  And FYI, since 2016 Renewable Energy has become the cheapest energy available in Europe, including the UK.

              No we are not talking about just ‘Energy’; we are talking about fossil fuels catastrophic impact on climate, and endanger our survival - as opposed to Renewable Energy, which doesn’t endanger our survival.

              CARBON TAX
              It seems to me that you are putting too much emphasis on carbon tax; currently only 25 countries have implemented carbon tax (the stick); while the UK and EU countries use a different strategy (the carrot) e.g. the ‘cap and trade’ approach to offset carbon emissions.

              I haven’t looked into the Carbon Tax because it doesn’t affect Europe, but the European (and UK) approach of ‘off-set’ carbon is a positive step towards reducing global warming.

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                "And FYI, since 2016 Renewable Energy has become the cheapest energy available in Europe, including the UK."

                Asked in another thread as well: is it actually cheaper or is it cheaper because govt. has fingers in setting prices and subsidizing it?

                1. Nathanville profile image92
                  Nathanvilleposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  It is actually cheaper because in Europe we’ve gone through the expensive ‘Development’ stage and have laid out the initial ‘Capital Investment’ to build the factories (creating jobs), supply chains (creating jobs), and infrastructures including upgrading the National Grid; these being the most expensive phase of setting up a new industry:  So now the investment is just for mass production (creating jobs), and Exports in technologies and skills (Good for the Economy). 

                  And with any new technology, it’s always far more expensive initially, but it gets cheaper once the initial Capital Investment is paid for, and when we reach the stage of ‘mass production’ (the profitable stage, which creates jobs, exports and good for the economy).

                  And interestingly, British Oil Companies, like SHELL and BP are now investing heavily in, and promoting, Renewable Energy.

                  Shell’s (British Oil Company) Climate Ambition: https://youtu.be/UQ2A1F05j38

              2. Ken Burgess profile image76
                Ken Burgessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                Unfortunately the UK is not the EU... they have reversed course and gone from Nuclear energy to relying on cheap Russian oil and gas.

                In general the world is not the UK, countries are looking for cheap energy and will take it anywhere and anyway they can get it.

                That the UK and America are moving toward Renewable energy will matter little, because the developing nations, and nations like China, will use up every bit of fossil fuels that America and the UK do not.

                This intense emphasis on Carbon, on Carbon Tax, on reducing energy usage in the Western world will do nothing.  Countries like India, China, all of Africa, South America will use whatever we don't... their demand will never abate, it will only grow.

                I have no problem with renewable energy.  I will have a solar system put in my home within a year, I am currently reviewing a multitude of bids and quotes for the project.

                I am not doing this because I think it will help reduce Carbon however, I am doing this because I know energy prices will go up 100% in just the next two years. Past that, they will continue to go up, whether it be because of scarcity or inflation or devaluation of the dollar.

                So, knowing this, having my own source of energy becomes important if I want to be able to maintain a decent standard of living in the future.

                I also own two EVs, one is a much higher expense than I preferred to invest in an EV, but I realize the prices for EVs are only going to go up as the demand increases... the demand will increase because gas prices are going to rise dramatically now that the midterm elections are over.

                Fortunately buying an EV today is more of an investment into an asset than an expense, as I know I will be able to sell either vehicle in the future for more than I paid for them.

                Not to mention the fact that I do not have to pay for gas, oil or other components that need replacement on a ICE vehicle.  It is again, more of an economic decision for me. Climate change has little to do with it.

                1. Nathanville profile image92
                  Nathanvilleposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  Your first sentence shows how ill-informed you are of what’s happening in the EU and the UK.

                  FYI the EU has NOT reversed course and gone from nuclear energy to replying on cheap Russian oil and gas:  It was Germany who closed down most of their nuclear power plants with immediate effect in 2011 in reaction to the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, with the intention to phase out the last of their nuclear power plants in 2022.  And instead of using nuclear power Germany switched to importing gas from Russia.

                  However, due to the war in Ukraine, the Germany Government has temporarily halted the phasing-out of their last two nuclear power plants in an effort to shore up energy security after Russia cut supplies of gas to Europe's largest economy.

                  And contrary to what you might think, only about 30% of Germany's electricity comes from fossil fuels, most of it these days comes from Renewable Energy.

                  Also, FYI 13 of the 27 EU countries uses nuclear power as part of their energy mix, so it’s incorrect to say “the EU have reversed course and gone from Nuclear energy to relying on cheap Russian oil and gas.” 

                  Natural gas makes up 27% of Germany’s energy mix, and before the start of the war in Ukraine 55% of the gas consumed in Germany was imported from Russia.

                  FYI information, before the Ukraine war Germany did not get the bulk of its oil from Russia.  Prior to the Ukraine war, the supply of Germany’s oil came from:-

                  •    Russia = 29%
                  •    Extracting its own oil in Germany = 27%
                  •    USA = 9%
                  •    Norway = 8%
                  •    UK = 7%
                  •    Saudi Arabia = 7%
                  •    Kazakhstan = 6%
                  •    Nigeria =  6 %

                  Your second sentence is only partially correct:  “Countries around the world are looking for cheap energy”, but many countries will not “take it anywhere and anyway they can get it”.  FYI, Renewable Energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels in most countries around the world; so you will find many countries hastening their transition away from fossil fuels.  Also, we know the damage that burning fossils is doing to the planet, so many countries (including China), especially in the EU, have put a lot of investment into developing and rolling out Renewable Energy, in spite of that fact that until 2016 it was more expensive that fossil fuels e.g. as of 2021 35.8% (over a third) of the world’s solar panels, and almost 50% (half) of the world’s wind power were installed in China.  So it’s untrue to say “many countries will take their energy anywhere and anyway they can get it”. 

                  Your 3rd sentence is inaccurate; the EU and UK, and China are moving towards Renewable Energy at a far faster rate than the USA.  If the USA was keeping up with the rest of the developed countries then we wouldn’t be having these discussions.

                  Yeah, the developing nations will use energy from where ever they can get it; but with Renewable Energy now being the cheaper option, even these developing countries will have a desire to transition from fossil fuels to Renewable energy as soon as is feasible; so they will not use up every bit of fossil fuels.

                  Besides, it’s neither China nor India that is the major cause of carbon emissions into the atmosphere, it the USA:-

                  China with a population 4.35 times the population of the USA releases half the carbon emission than the USA per capita.

                  CO2 Emissions by Country (as a percentage of the world) the top 10 worst countries:-

                  1.    China =29.18%
                  2.    USA = 14.02%
                  3.    India = 7.09%
                  4.    Russia = 4.65%
                  5.    Japan =3.47%
                  6.    Germany = 2.17%
                  7.    Canada = 1.89%
                  8.    Iran = 1.8%
                  9.    South Korea = 1.69%
                  10.    Indonesia = 1.48%

                  The UK is 17th, with just 1.03%

                  Your 4th sentence is incorrect for the reasons given above e.g. Renewable Energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels across most of the world, and it’s not these countries that are the major cause of the CO2 emissions – the USA is the main culprit, see table above.

                  It’s good to hear that you’re getting solar panels and are using EVs.  I had solar panels and a wall battery installed last year, and it’s made a big difference to my energy bills.  We are thinking of getting an EV within a few years, and we’ll have to anyway as fossil fuel cars will be banned in the UK by 2030, but we’re biding our time for the prices to fall (in real terms) to an acceptable level; once mass production kicks in to lower the unit price, as always happens with new technology.

                  I don’t know about the USA market, but actually in Europe, and across most of the world, the cost of EV’s (in real terms) is not increasing, but decreasing; as always happens with new technology e.g. increased mass production always makes the unit cost cheaper (standard economics). 

                  Yeah, and I know that you have little care for the climate change; and that you are not likely to change your views until it’s too late.

                2. CHRIS57 profile image60
                  CHRIS57posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  ...Countries like India, China, all of Africa, South America will use whatever we don't... their demand will never abate, it will only grow....

                  Are you sure?
                  World consumption of oil and coal is fairly constant over the past 15 years.
                  However natural gas consumption has been rising continuously. Possibly because it was considered a clean energy source, compared to other fossiles.

                  The attitude towards natural gas is changing, nontheless due to the Ukraine war and lack of Russian reliability.

                  As always, before you shift into reverse gear, you have to come to a stop. This seems to have been achieved for coal and oil. Natural gas will be next, at least to limit consumption growth. Politics (at least in EU/UK) is amplifying this. Of course with consequences: Gas prices are very volatile.

                  No matter if you believe in climate change or not, something is changing and that is the decreasing availability of cheap energy. Drives up prices and opens markets to alternative energy sources.

                  Everyone better adapt to this, on the personal level and on a corporate level. Ken, while i don´t follow you on future fossile fuel use predictions, i am with you concerning the financial effects.

                  1. Ken Burgess profile image76
                    Ken Burgessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    A good example of how other nations will purchase and consume what we do not is India.

                    They are buying up every bit of energy being produced by Russia that the West will not.

                    The more India and other nations become more industrialized the more energy they will consume.

                    And yes, prices are going to go up, especially in the Western nations due to taxation and regulation if for no other reason.

  2. Nathanville profile image92
    Nathanvilleposted 19 months ago

    A well-presented article, but some inaccuracies in your statements, including:-

    #1:  “America in particular changed how the world worked, they came together with their allies and said, essentially, you no longer need to have navies, we will patrol the waters/trade-ways all over the world for you.”

    A reference to NATO, of which the UK is a member, and we along with all other NATO countries do have our navies; the agreement being that all NATO members should spend at least 2% of their GDP on Defence – with the USA being the biggest contributor because it has the biggest GDP. 

    However, of the 30 NATO countries, only 10 are meeting or exceeding that 2% of GDP expenditure on Defence; those countries being (as at 2021):-

    1.    Greece = 3.82% of GDP
    2.    USA = 3.52% of GDP
    3.    Croatia = 2.79% of GDP
    4.    UK = 2.29% of GDP
    5.    Estonia = 2.28% of GDP
    6.    Latvia = 2.27% of GDP
    7.    Poland = 2.10% of GDP
    8.    Lithuania = 2.03% of GDP
    9.    Romania = 2.02% of GDP
    10.    France = 2.01% of GDP

    #2:  Free Trade protected by America? 

    The fall-back position of ‘Free Trade’ is the WTO (World Trade Organisation).  The EU has ‘trade agreements’ with over 70 countries (about a third of the world); the USA has trade agreements with just 14 countries. 

    Neither the EU nor the UK has a trade agreement with the USA.  The UK’s main trading partner is the EU, which has been severely crippled by Brexit.

    #3:  Over the last 30 years, Russia, along with Ukraine and Belarus, became interwoven with Global trade.  Europe became dependent on Russia's energy products Oil and Gas, while the world became dependent on products like Fertilizer, Potash, Neon, and even Wheat produced from these three nations which collectively they were the #1 producer in these categories and more.

    It’s China that has become interwoven with Global trade, not Russia; the only main export of Russia is natural gas to mainland Europe.

    Yes, mainland Europe, particular Germany, has become dependent on Russia for natural gas; over 50% of Germany’s natural gas came from Russia.

    However, Europe is not dependent on Russian oil; most of Russia’s oil is exported to China.

    The main countries for the production and export of nitrogen fertilizer are:-

    1.    China
    2.    USA
    3.    India
    4.    Russia

    The main countries for the production and export of potash fertilizer are:-

    1.    Canada – exports about 50% more than Russia
    2.    Russia
    3.    Belarus
    4.    China
    5.    Germany
    6.    Israel
    7.    Jordon
    8.    Chile
    9.    Spain
    10.    UK
    11.    Poland
    12.    USA – exports about a 3rd of Russia

    Ukraine exports about 90% of the world’s neon.

    The main countries for the export of wheat are:-
    1.    Russia – 13.1% of the world’s total wheat exports
    2.    USA – 13.1% of the world’s total wheat exports
    3.    Australia – 13% of the world’s total wheat exports
    4.    Canada – 11.9% of the world’s total wheat exports
    5.    Ukraine – 8.5% of the world’s total wheat exports
    6.    France – 8.2% of the world’s total wheat exports
    7.    Argentina – 5.3% of the world’s total wheat exports
    8.    Germany – 3.6% of the world’s total wheat exports
    9.    Romania – 3.3% of the world’s total wheat exports
    10.    India – 3.1% of the world’s total wheat exports

    #4:  Biden has ushered in the De-Globalization stage of humanity.

    Trump was the one that was anti-globalisation; his withdrawal of the Paris Agreement, his withdrawal from various ‘trade agreements’, his threat to withdraw from NATO, his dismissal of the WHO, and his trade wars not with just China, but with the EO as well.

    #5: First Biden has completely decoupled Russia (and Belarus and Ukraine) from the rest of the world.  This in turn makes all those products and materials I noted that they were #1 in the world producing (some in the range of 80% of the world's supply) unavailable.

    The only product that I can see that is over 80% from the above-mentioned countries is Neon from Ukraine; only 13.1% of the world’s wheat comes from Russia, which matches the 13.1% that comes from the USA.  The only other main product from Russia (exported to mainland Europe, mainly Germany) is natural gas.  50% of Germany’s natural gas came from Russia, but because of the war, Germany and the rest of Europe will break its dependency on Russian gas; sooner rather than later.

    #6:  Third Biden has impacted not just the production of energy products in America; he is cutting off the ability for Russia to supply energy as well.  This in turn puts Saudi Arabia and OPEC in general in the driver's seat for energy pricing and production.

    Well, while the USA basks in the use of fossil fuels, China and Europe, and other countries around the world are rapidly transitioning away from fossil fuels in favour of Renewable Energy; so within the next 10 years or so, OPEC’s importance in the energy pricing and production will diminish.

    #7:  This will lead to a greater energy crisis globally than we saw in the 70s.  Which in turn will impact production of everything across the globe, raising costs of food, transportation, etc.

    In the interim, yes:  But in the longer term, as we become more dependent on Renewable Energy that will change.

    #8:  It was the one-two punch of Russian and American production of oil and gas resources the last 20 years that had allowed us such affordable cheap energy... which in turn allowed the American economy to thrive fairly well despite exporting most of its manufacturing jobs to the rest of the world.

    Yep, that’s the past; but in the future it’s going to be Renewable Energy where the wealth, prosperity and job creation is going to be; and China and Europe, including the UK are leading the way in that new technology, creating jobs, exports and wealth, while the USA seems to be missing out on a golden opportunity as it clings to fossil fuels.

    The Global Renewable Energy Market (as at 2021) was worth $881.7 billion (of which 5% is in the UK); China alone invested $83.4 billion into Renewable Energy investments in 2019.

    #9:  The damage Biden has done in just two years... is almost incomprehensible... any fears Trump haters had out there, this man is going to bring into reality, and more.

    As an outsider, I don’t see it; most of what you describe is world events that no single country has any control over; we’re all in the same boat.  Although in the UK the situation has been made much worse because of Brexit – but that has nothing to do with America.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image76
      Ken Burgessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

      When I got to the part where you tried to dispute what I noted about the products and materials Russia and that region produce, I knew you were on another one of your rants.

      Some of the facts you spin have nothing to do at all with the points I made.

      Others are just snippets that are unrelated or are eurocentric.  Europe is an increasingly smaller part of the world. It has no military power or navy to speak of, America was always the real military force in the world since WWII.

      1. Nathanville profile image92
        Nathanvilleposted 19 months agoin reply to this

        Very dismissive and condescending attitude; the facts I gave are very relevant to the points you made, they show that you are over dramatizing and inflating the situation to make it appear that the USA is ‘the all mighty’ and that the rest of the world are just gnats.  The facts I’ve given you puts things into prospective.  The fact is the world does not revolve around the USA; the USA is a part of the world - albeit an important player (but not the only player).

        And for Your Information:  The navy forces across Europe is far larger, and far more powerful than you imagine:-

        FYI the USA has 490 Naval ships; while Europe has 261, just over half the size of the American navy, so not so small as you thought – the UK alone has 38 naval vessels, including 4 submarines that are armed with nuclear warheads at all times.

        It’s also reflected in the expenditure e.g. the USA spends over $800,000 a year on defence; and European countries in NATO spends over $300,000 a year on defence; which is a sizable slice of the cake (contribution).

        UK Nuclear deterrent:  https://youtu.be/aUnoGsJnyc0

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

          The us, with half the population of Europe, fields nearly double the number of Naval ships, and presumably it is about the same for planes, tanks, warriors, etc.

          What are your thoughts on why that is?  Does Europe feel that a strong military is not needed (will Ukraine change their mind)?  Or is it simply that the US is responsible, somehow, for the bulk of European military deterrent in spite of having a much lower population?

          1. Nathanville profile image92
            Nathanvilleposted 19 months agoin reply to this

            Absolutely, I agree with you; the USA does spend almost double on defence compared with Europe, in spite of having almost half the population.  That’s not what I was quibbling about, it’s the fact that Ken said, to quote “Europe ….has no military power or navy to speak of….”  Etc.

            Europe does have a large military power, and a strong navy (especially countries like the UK); it's just not quite as large as the USA, but it's not insignificant, as Ken would like to have us believe. 

            Getting onto your other points, the NATO agreement is that each NATO member ‘should’ spend at least 2% of their GDP on Defence; and if each NATO member did then it would be equitable.   However, it's unfortunate and despicable, that (with the exception of the UK and France) most of the wealthy countries in Western Europe (who could afford the 2%) don’t spend that much on Defence.

            Of the 30 NATO members, only 10 stick to the agreement, including the UK, France and the USA, the other 7 NATO members who do pay more than 2% on their Defence are all the less wealthy countries in Eastern Europe (who can least afford to pay), mostly NATO members who until the collapse of the Russian Empire in 1992 were part of the Russian Empire.  Greece, a poor county, spends the most in relation to their GDP, 3.82% on Defence, which is even more than the USA spends, which is 3.52% of its GDP.

            Europe does feel that a strong military is needed, but regrettably most of the wealthy countries in Western Europe have been too reliant on the USA as a back-up; albeit, since 2019 France has been trying to change that e.g. the French are pushing for the creation of an EU Army so that the EU can be more self-reliant militarily – but it’s a political process that will take time.

            As regards Ukraine, on the 30th September 2022 it formally applied to join NATO, but obviously its application cannot be processed until/unless Ukraine wins the war against Russia.  And if/when Ukraine does win the war and is accepted into NATO then I’m confident that Ukraine, like all the other Eastern European countries who used to be part of the Russian Empire will want to contribute as much as it can to Defence, and will strive to spend more than the 2% of its GDP on Defence.

            One interesting development is that unlike the rest of Western Europe, who have been a little too complacent, France and the UK have been working together since 2010 to build up their military forces, and expertise e.g. a joint Anglo-French military force called ‘Griffin’; as briefly explained in this short video:  https://youtu.be/p-Vnjv0jZ64

            The 10 of the 30 NATO members who do pay their fair share on Defence:-

            1.    Greece = 3.82% of GDP
            2.    USA = 3.52% of GDP
            3.    Croatia = 2.79% of GDP
            4.    UK = 2.29% of GDP
            5.    Estonia = 2.28% of GDP
            6.    Latvia = 2.27% of GDP
            7.    Poland = 2.10% of GDP
            8.    Lithuania = 2.03% of GDP
            9.    Romania = 2.02% of GDP
            10.    France = 2.01% of GDP

            1. Sharlee01 profile image90
              Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

              Quick question, and off subject, but please entertain answering.

              If the US does declare an open war on Russia, will NATO Countries condone and enter into a war with Russia, over Ukraine?

              From what I have read, NATO would not condone a war with Russia over what is happening in Ukraine.  I do realize things could truly change if Russia threatens or uses weapons of mass destruction.

              But, Ken has a point, it looks as if the US could push forward and declare war, without provocation.

              1. Ken Burgess profile image76
                Ken Burgessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                America won't declare war, that takes an act of Congress.

                Biden will use some excuse and send troops in.  We didn't declare war on Libya, yet we took that nation down.  Heck we didn't declare war on Iraq or Afghanistan but I seem to remember America being involved in those countries for a while.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image90
                  Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  I thought about that, but with the current Congress, they might be persuaded to declare war, but on the other hand, the Dems are jumping ship and after the elections next week, more will take that dive.

                  So, do you think if Biden orders troops and war with Russia in Ukraine, will NATO cave and support such a war?

                  I don't think they will... I can see the US going it alone, but man will we appear as slim around the world.

                  1. Ken Burgess profile image76
                    Ken Burgessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    UK will go along with it, Poland seems interested in seeing Russia defeated as well.

                    I wouldn't put my money on anyone else in NATO being particularly wanting to escalate this war.

                2. Miebakagh57 profile image67
                  Miebakagh57posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  I think it was Ronald Reagan, that pioneer that?

              2. Nathanville profile image92
                Nathanvilleposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                For clarity, the USA would only declare war on Russia if Russia made a direct attack on America, or perhaps may consider taking retaliatory action against Russia if Russia used nuclear weapons in Ukraine.  Under the NATO agreement, an attack on one NATO country is an attack on ‘all’ NATO countries, so if Russia did make a direct attack on America, the rest of the NATO countries would automatically become involved.

                For clarity, the USA will not take unilateral military action against Russia without the consent of NATO.   

                For clarity, consensus and consultation are part of NATO's DNA.  All member countries are represented in NATO Council, where decisions are taken by consensus; which means unanimously e.g. expressing the collective will of all the nations.  So NATO will not declare war on Russia, nor send NATO troops in Ukraine unless ‘all’ NATO countries unanimously agree to do so, as happed in Yugoslavia in 1999 when NATO went to war in Yugoslavia and overthrew the Yugoslavia Government.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image90
                  Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  It would seem here in the US many feel Biden will send in troops, for a reason other than Russia using WMD. So, I see you have a definite feeling about what NATO would do. I would not be so sure what the US may do, Ken has laid out a scenario that makes sense. He pointed out our Congress would most likely not declare war.

                  However, Biden will use some excuse and send troops in.  We didn't declare war on Libya, yet we took that nation down. He pointed out,  we didn't declare war on Iraq or Afghanistan but I seem to remember America being involved in those countries with troops.

                  1. Nathanville profile image92
                    Nathanvilleposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                    As regards Libya - All NATO members were in agreement to invade Libya (air strikes only, no military on the ground).  To make it legal under International Law NATO sought consent from the UN Security Council, which includes Russia and China.  In March 2011 when the UN Security Council voted on it, 10 nations voted in favour of military action, and 5 nations (including Russia and China) abstained; if China or Russia had voted against the ‘Security Council Resolution 1973’ then NATOs war with Libya would have been illegal.

                    In that conflict, for clarity, it wasn’t just the USA; in fact the French were the first to make an air strike in Libya.  American and British naval forces fired over 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles, while the French Air Force, British Royal Air Force, and Royal Canadian Air Force undertook sorties across Libya and a naval blockade by Coalition forces.  French jets launched air strikes against Libyan Army tanks and vehicles, and the intervention did not employ foreign ground troops.

                    As regards the invasion of Iraq, there were a total of 48 countries who participated in the war, which militarily was jointly led by the USA, UK, Australia, Italy, Spain and Poland – one interesting fact is that whenever the UK goes to war Australia is always keen to join in!

                    With Afghanistan, what sparked NATO to invade Afghanistan was the 9/11 terrorist attack in the USA; the terrorist operating from Afghanistan.  Thus the NATO core principle that an attack on one NATO country is an attack on ‘all’ NATO countries automatically meant that NATO would respond e.g. NATO’s invasion of Afghanistan.

  3. Miebakagh57 profile image67
    Miebakagh57posted 19 months ago

    'Except  those days be shorten, they shall no flesh be saved. But for the elected sake, those days shall be shorten'.-Jesus.                                         Yes, there's hope. While as a student in a chemistry class. I was told any time you drink a glass of water, you also drink an  insignificant micro-percentage of the glass that was erode into the water. Likewise, this apply to tin, ceramic, copper, and others. But our bodies are so strongly build to ward off the polluting elements.                                        But smoke pollution from hydro carbon fuels will kill one in 2 or 3 minutes in closed doors.                                  Critically, the immediate environment is what we should take care of. Plant a tree every day.

  4. Miebakagh57 profile image67
    Miebakagh57posted 19 months ago

    Is International Trade on the same tract as 'globalization'? Is not China ambtious of becoming the 'sole trader' of the world'? What d' you say?

    1. Nathanville profile image92
      Nathanvilleposted 19 months agoin reply to this

      Good question.  I guess it could be argued that Globalisation could mean 'world domination' e.g. China becoming the 'sole trader' of the world; but Globalisation can also mean 'International Trade' as opposed to 'Nationalism' (where a country tries to become self-sufficient and shuns away from trading with the rest of the world.

      But in economics it "takes two to tango" - if China were to become the 'sole trader; of the world China would have no one to trade with because if the rest of the world couldn't trade (to balance the books) then they wouldn't be able to afford to buy from China e.g. Trade has to be two-way for it to work (economic growth).

      Hence why the new silk road (railway) between China and Europe, including Britain, is so popular e.g. it increases the EU's and UK's exports, as well as China's - So it's a win-win for everyone.

      China's New Silk Road By Train https://youtu.be/g1XVNKMP_FE

      1. Miebakagh57 profile image67
        Miebakagh57posted 19 months agoin reply to this

        Arthur, you have a some sound body of the. Principles of Economicrs and it's analysis. (Editing v

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image76
          Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months agoin reply to this

          Mao

    2. Ken Burgess profile image76
      Ken Burgessposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      America and China are decoupling from each other.

      For thirty years Wall St. Investment Firms grew rich on shutting down business in America and shipping them to China.

      Even today, America's most recognizable and largest company (in terms of worth) is heavily dependent on its devices being made in China, only now is Apple slowly moving manufacturing away from China.

      Production centers are popping up in Mexico, India, Vietnam, as well as the US, according to a new report in the Wall Street Journal. But no country can yet match the scale of operations Apple built in China.

      Apple, Wall Mart, Nike, Gillette, a majority of top brand names and businesses have flourished by having their products produced and assembled in China.

      This will be a painful time for both Nations, it will also be a time of choosing sides for many nations. 

      Saudi Arabia has come to terms with China recently and will be selling China oil in Yuan, not Dollars.  And why not?  They can buy more goods from China, the world's leading Industrial nation, than they can from America.

      Russia is forcing nations to buy its resources, from oil to wheat, in Rubles not Dollars.

      World Trade will be split into Dollar and Yuan, at the least, more if Russia succeeds in breaking free from the Dollar Reserve and survives its war with Ukraine.

      Russia's ties to OPEC and its alliance with China will also have an impact.

      The thirty+ years of stability and global trade as we have known it is over.

      The fourty years of prosperity America has seen, since it was pulled out of a recession and double digit interest rates back in the early 80s is now over... we may be returning to such difficult times again, everything from power and gas shortages to rampant unemployment is possible.

      It will be worse for the EU and many other parts of the world.

      1. CHRIS57 profile image60
        CHRIS57posted 18 months agoin reply to this

        You can only trade, what can be produced in one place and then be sent to another place, produced by one entity and then sold to another entity.

        The general dependence on global trade is simply that some countries produce less than necessary for their own status quo and others produce more than they need for their situation. Kind of to help those countries in need and at the same time help themselves of emptying the shelves from overproduced products.

        The USA had chosen long time ago (in the 70ties, 80ties) to be a service oriented economy. Was it a deliberate act to reduce own producing capability? Nevertheless others had to step in and provide all goods necessary for maintaining status quo. We can argue which hen, which egg was first..

        Today we have the situation that reflects directly to the retreat of the USA from making stuff. Today workbenches of the world are China and a handful of other countries in Asia and Europe.

        Imho this development has little to do with the currency that trading is done with. Would be the same in kind of a bartering system.

        Another story is reserve currency. Much wealth was accumulated in USD after WWII. This is what makes the USD a reserve currency. I could argue the USD as reserve currency would even exist if the USA would cease to exist. Well - a little provocative..

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)