Quantcast

Is America's failed economic system going to collapse?

Mopvyzo 2013/02/26 07:26:54
Related Topics: America, Collapse, Economic
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Read More: http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/progressive-...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • ant0n1us 2013/02/26 15:25:06
    No
    ant0n1us
    +9
    What "failed economic system"? The DowJones is at an all-time high. House markets are up. General Motors is making so much money after the bailout, they can afford to buy their stock back.

    There is no problem with America's ECONOMIC SYSTEM. There IS a problem with the POLITICAL SYSTEM, and it is called the House of Representatives--the least productive in almost 50 years!

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • michael 2013/03/13 14:47:18
    None of the above
    michael
    what do you mean going to collaspe...........in someways it has already started......"loss of our national credit rating more than a year and half ago...first lowering of our national credit score since 1917.......national unemployment rates hovering around 8% ( but everyone knows it is much larger than that especially when you consider those people who are working only part-time.....a housing market that is flat or showing only marginal growth... a truly record high national budget deficit......all this as Wall Street is achieving record highs in this jobless recovery ( it should be remembered that many of those companies where bailed out by the US government).
  • JEFF 2013/02/28 02:06:45
    Yes
    JEFF
    +1
    ALREADY HAS. MOST JUST DON'T KNOW IT.
  • questionsparks 2013/02/27 16:32:17
    I don't give a sh*t.
    questionsparks
    +1
    I hope so.
  • tom Savage 2013/02/27 15:49:44
    No
    tom Savage
    Our economic systems is anything but failed. In fact, it is thriving. GDP growth is lower than we would like but all of the major economic indicators are strong and the future looks good. I know that's bad news for the doom and gloomers but suck it up guys. is it bad that your black cloud has a silver lining?
  • The Big Taboo [AKA Phuck No... 2013/02/27 04:59:07
    None of the above
    The Big Taboo [AKA Phuck Norris]
    +2
    It seems unlikely, but I hope so. It sounds weird, unpatriotic even. But, when something that is supposed function stops doing so, it is to be fixed. If it cannot be fixed, then it must be replaced. We live in a culture in which when something needs to be replaced, we wait to replace it until we've completely run it into the ground. That simply cannot be done without paying the toll for that kind of procrastination. It seems that historically that what brings us together is tragedy. It's sad, but I think the American government and the people would learn a hell of a lot more if the economy collapsed than if we held it together under less than optimal conditions for another indefinite period of time. Maybe this time, we'll actually learn from the whole ordeal.
  • Emo Rocker 2013/02/27 03:28:00
    Yes
    Emo Rocker
    +1
    Most likely
  • Lefty-Lucy 2013/02/27 02:52:45
    No
    Lefty-Lucy
    We survived the Great Depression which was way worse than this. We will push on, it's in our nature.
  • Drageona 2013/02/27 02:43:40
    I don't have an opinion.
    Drageona
    It's hard to say the way things are going right now. We will just have to wait and see
  • Michael S. 2013/02/27 02:03:29 (edited)
    Yes
    Michael S.
    +2
    Central banking and fiat money inherently enable endless unsustainable government spending, and this eventually leads to currency collapse.

    In the meantime, all of the inflation erodes savings (unless you invest in the bubble where most of it is going, then get out at the right time) and ensures prices increase WAY faster than wages. (The CPI indicates that prices have increased slightly less over the past couple decades, but the modern CPI is a lie. ShadowStats calculates much higher price inflation using the old, honest method.) The expansion of the monetary base and artificially low interest rates lead to almost everyone borrowing and spending at the same time, and the overly optimistic economic estimates at the beginning of the boom lead to an unsustainable number and concentration of entrepreneurial ventures. The bills all come due around the same time as well, so demand plummets, and businesses fail by the bundle during the bust, leading to widespread unemployment.

    Similarly, all of the government spending replaces sustainable consumer demand with artificial government demand and leads to misplaced capital investment in the wrong idustries and companies. Along with regulations, this perpetuates a supply/demand-side mismatch and impedes the restructuring we need to fac...






    Central banking and fiat money inherently enable endless unsustainable government spending, and this eventually leads to currency collapse.

    In the meantime, all of the inflation erodes savings (unless you invest in the bubble where most of it is going, then get out at the right time) and ensures prices increase WAY faster than wages. (The CPI indicates that prices have increased slightly less over the past couple decades, but the modern CPI is a lie. ShadowStats calculates much higher price inflation using the old, honest method.) The expansion of the monetary base and artificially low interest rates lead to almost everyone borrowing and spending at the same time, and the overly optimistic economic estimates at the beginning of the boom lead to an unsustainable number and concentration of entrepreneurial ventures. The bills all come due around the same time as well, so demand plummets, and businesses fail by the bundle during the bust, leading to widespread unemployment.

    Similarly, all of the government spending replaces sustainable consumer demand with artificial government demand and leads to misplaced capital investment in the wrong idustries and companies. Along with regulations, this perpetuates a supply/demand-side mismatch and impedes the restructuring we need to facilitate the production of actual useful goods that people need. It also greatly contributes to the inefficiency and waste that tie up capital resources and lead to cumulatively higher unemployment.

    So, yeah, without a serious rethinking of our currency and government spending, we are absolutely headed for collapse.

    Quick quiz: Does the stock market rally and high GDP demonstrate our economy is doing okay?
    If you answered, "No," then good.
    If you answered, "I don't know," then that's okay too, because it's not fair to expect everyone to understand these things.
    If you answered, "Yes," then you're a dangerous moron with no concept of how monetary expansion affects the economy.
    (more)
  • norman 2013/02/27 00:14:12
    Yes
    norman
    +1
    Certainly the part of the economic system that serves the needs of the majority of the nation, yes.

    But not to worry, the top 2% will be fine. And if they're not, Obama and the Republicans and Democrats will eagerly be taking your tax money to save them.

    Welcome to America, the leading edge in the third-worlding of the world.
  • RevJim 2013/02/26 22:51:25
    Yes
    RevJim
    +2
    Corporatism is unsustainable and has long outlasted any useful life it may have had. I think if people realize that the marriage between politicians and corporations is very, very bad for freedom and the economy, it will collapse, bringing Europe and China with it. Hopefully, it will be replaced by true Capitalism and a free market, as all the other alternatives have been tried and have failed.
  • norman RevJim 2013/02/27 00:16:04
    norman
    +1
    Corporatism is a good word for it - it's the term Mussolini preferred. Fascism is another word for it, as well.
  • mich52 2013/02/26 22:05:54
  • TombstoneJim 2013/02/26 22:02:50
    None of the above
    TombstoneJim
    The "American" system has not failed. We, the body politic, have failed to hold accountible the non-producing politicians for thier egos and failure.
  • Balladeer-PWCM-POTL 2013/02/26 21:57:55
    Yes
    Balladeer-PWCM-POTL
    Thanks to obama that's a certainty... hey mope think you will still be on obama's payroll when socialism is implemented? all you are is a useful idiot to him....promises come cheap and I guess you do as well
  • Red Branch 2013/02/26 21:56:15
    None of the above
    Red Branch
    More than likely and it will only be a little bit behind schedule. Never in all of history has a great nation went from the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation in less than 50 years.
  • ProudProgressive 2013/02/26 21:54:12
    No
    ProudProgressive
    +1
    There is nothing wrong with the American economic system. The reason we are currently in such difficult economic times is that one segment of our country, the segment furthest to the Right, has abandoned even the pretense of trying to do anything to benefit the American people and instead have devoted all of their efforts to BREAKING the American economic system. They know as well as everyone else that "austerity" is a formula for disaster and that it is impossible for a nation to cut its way to prosperity. Yet here we are three days from a sequester of their own manufacture (and to those who want to play the "Obama said it first so he owns it" nonsense, find another poll), with even several of their own Governors begging John Boehner and Co. to come to their senses and include revenue increases in any deal. And even today we still hear the same tired and repeatedly failed mantra of how tax increases on the richest Americans will be a disaster but cutting food and medical care for the poorest Americans is a wonderful thing.
  • les_gvt 2013/02/26 21:14:11
    No
    les_gvt
    +1
    The economic system is just fine- it is the Marxist Progressive Democrats that are destroying it.

    if communism worked so well, why is Cuba still poor and the USSR no longer around? Yugoslavia anyone?
  • Mopvyzo les_gvt 2013/02/26 21:35:14
    Mopvyzo
    +1
    Remember China? They are doing just fine... some would say they are doing great.
  • Red Branch Mopvyzo 2013/02/26 21:56:48
    Red Branch
    At what price?
  • les_gvt Mopvyzo 2013/02/26 22:07:39
    les_gvt
    interesting you would say that-
    Keeping Zhou ensures that the PBOC will remain a trusted instrument through which China's leaders can enact financial reforms designed to boost free markets and private enterprise, rebalance the economy, reinvigorate growth and ultimately heal a socially divisive rift between the country's rich and poor.
    _____________________________...
    It seems they are moving steadily to the free market system we are abandoning

    And please note- this is from CNBC, not FOX
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/100488...
  • les_gvt Mopvyzo 2013/02/26 22:09:00
    les_gvt
    but China's economy is based on selling to us and other western nations that have gone away from the production side. When our economies are down- so is theirs
  • norman les_gvt 2013/02/27 00:37:12
    norman
    Sounds like capitalism to me. I though they were evil communists?
  • norman les_gvt 2013/02/27 00:36:26
    norman
    Cuba? Do you know anything about Cuba? From your post I would have to conclude that you don't.

    The US has been enforcing an embargo against Cuba since 1961. For 50 years the US government has been standing on the neck of the Cuban economy, strangling it by cutting it off from its natural trading partners in the region; threatening economic sanctions against any other nations doing business with the US who trade with Cuba; and even restricting tourism from the US (did you know that American citizens are legally constrained from visiting Cuba? We're the only people in the world whose own government bans travel to Cuba).

    Go to Russia today and you will find that a majority of the ordinary people there felt they were much better off under the post-Stalinist, Soviet socialist system than the authoritarian-capitalist garbage they're stuck with now.

    Yugoslavia was probably the freest and most independent nation within the old Soviet system. Communism and socialism had little to do with the break-up of Yugoslavia and far more to do with the ethnic and religious animosities that were stirred-up by a number of thugs like Milosevic following the death of Tito.

    You really should try to learn something about a subject before speaking, instead of exposing yourself as an ignoramus.

    "Marxist Progressive Democrats" That's a joke!
  • les_gvt norman 2013/02/27 03:41:19 (edited)
    les_gvt
    So Cuba has all it's economic problems because only 1 nation out of 193 on the planet will not trade with it?

    Please explain how an embargo by the US creates a shortage of fish on an island surrounded by water

    Russia? who is running the nation- an ex KGB colonel- he has been a defacto dictator for the last 15? years. Things were getting better under Gorbachev .

    Yugoslavia- once again- it fell apart after the death of a dictator.

    If Communism is so great, why are there not boatloads of Americans and Canadians moving to Cuba? Why do we not have fences to keep people in like E Germany and N Korea?
  • Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum 2013/02/26 20:58:38
    Yes
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    +2
    A capitalist system such as ours requiring infinite exponential growth in the real economy just to provide a continuous nonzero rate of return on investment cannot avoid collapse. The mathematics of exponential growth combined with the limits of thermodynamics gives no other alternative. Capitalism is a death sentence for human civilization.
  • Michael S. Warren ... 2013/02/27 02:39:22 (edited)
    Michael S.
    +2
    Strictly speaking, entropy ensures that any planet's resources and energy will eventually be "consumed" by its lifeforms and too widespread to be useful anymore, and any star's energy will eventually be spread throughout the universe. That's true of all life and economic systems though, not just capitalism. Still, the resources on Earth are a lot more abundant than some would have you believe, and we'll eventually have access to resources in the asteroid belt and beyond. Really, the galaxy and universe will run out of resources by itself long before we manage to deplete them. Entropy is a death sentence for everyone.

    (On the bright side, I doubt the universe's entropic death will be eternal and irreversible: We only consider the Second Law of Thermodynamics to be true because it's consistent with our empirical experiences and our logical understanding of every known physical process. However, the rules were likely different prior to the Big Bang, which led to energy being configured in such a way that the Big Bang was possible...and they might be different sometime in the future as well, e.g. after a spontaneous vacuum collapse or something. I get the feeling existence is probably older than we know. :p)

    Anyway, capitalism requires continuous production to meet continuous...







    Strictly speaking, entropy ensures that any planet's resources and energy will eventually be "consumed" by its lifeforms and too widespread to be useful anymore, and any star's energy will eventually be spread throughout the universe. That's true of all life and economic systems though, not just capitalism. Still, the resources on Earth are a lot more abundant than some would have you believe, and we'll eventually have access to resources in the asteroid belt and beyond. Really, the galaxy and universe will run out of resources by itself long before we manage to deplete them. Entropy is a death sentence for everyone.

    (On the bright side, I doubt the universe's entropic death will be eternal and irreversible: We only consider the Second Law of Thermodynamics to be true because it's consistent with our empirical experiences and our logical understanding of every known physical process. However, the rules were likely different prior to the Big Bang, which led to energy being configured in such a way that the Big Bang was possible...and they might be different sometime in the future as well, e.g. after a spontaneous vacuum collapse or something. I get the feeling existence is probably older than we know. :p)

    Anyway, capitalism requires continuous production to meet continuous consumption, but that is true of all economic systems in which people do not starve, eat each other, or live pre-agricultural hunter/gatherer lifestyles. It does not mathematically require even linear continuous growth, let alone exponential growth.

    It would only require continuous growth under one of two conditions, neither of which hold in reality:
    a.) The population constantly and endlessly expands without limit. However, population growth rates are largely a cultural byproduct of economic conditions. Western industrialized countries actually reproduce at replacement rate discounting immigration, and this is a natural cultural byproduct of abundance that affects every country that reaches a certain level of development. Even the Malthusian UN projects that population levels will reach equilibrium later this century.
    b.) A constraint were imposed on capitalism that ensured continual entrepreneurial ventures only supplemented *but never replaced* existing industries and companies, such that no entrepreneurs really took any risks and all, and they were all guaranteed positive returns. Although it's possible for government to attempt to impose such constraints, it's not a natural law of the market.

    Now, increasingly advanced and efficient technology and higher populations both allow for greater production, which can either be used to sustain a greater population or higher standards of living and consumption. Technology is indeed getting better, and world population is still growing (for now), so there are still natural expansionist influences, but they are self-limiting and not eternal. There's a limit to just how many physical phenomena we can exploit and an asymptotic limit to efficiency, so there's a limit to technological advancement. I mentioned limits to population growth above, and there's also a limit to just how much the average person would ever be capable of personally consuming, barring wanton destruction for its own sake. Besides, the price mechanism regulates consumption to match available resources anyway.

    All that said, fiat money and a debt-based economy does incentivize recklessly and unsustainably expansionist behavior...but it's unsustainable for a reason: The system incentivizes monetary and debt expansion that far outpaces real economic growth, so it implodes on itself.
    (more)
  • Warren ... Michael S. 2013/02/27 03:06:15
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    +1
    You are correct about entropy, but you are wrong about capitalism. What you describe is a steady state economy, which is fundamentally incompatible with capitalism. In a steady state economy, there is no net return on investment of capital because there is no net economic growth. This is what is known as a recession, and can only be tolerated temporarily, but cannot be sustained without either economic collapse or the abandonment of capitalism.
  • Michael S. Warren ... 2013/02/27 03:11:17 (edited)
    Michael S.
    +1
    Unfortunately, you are just restating the argument that I have already offered a more detailed rebuttal against. Capitalism allows for entrepreneurial ventures and/or business expansion, which can either supplement existing pursuits (causing growth, limited by technological and cultural factors) or replace them (causing temporary restructuring with zero net growth, but no collapse). However, nothing about capitalism prohibits a steady state economy, once people run out of entrepreneurial ideas and a stable equilibrium is approached (and then reached) regarding supply and demand in every industry. It will obviously be a long time before people actually run out of new ideas for improving living standards (and that will be a sad day), but that doesn't mean stable equilibrium is impossible...nor is it a necessary condition for a constant-size economy on average.

    You have not yet justified how and why lack of growth by itself leads to collapse, particularly in a way my argument doesn't anticipate (e.g. in the absence of a debt-based monetary system).
  • Warren ... Michael S. 2013/02/27 03:21:19
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    +2
    If the economy doesn't expand, then from a macroeconomic viewpoint, there is no reason to invest capital. Banks issue debt so that the debt can earn compound interest by being invested. And without economic expansion, the macroeconomy can never pay back those debts with interest. Compound interest requires an infinitely expanding currency and an economy capable of infinite expansion to prevent collapse of the currency.
  • Michael S. Warren ... 2013/02/27 03:34:40 (edited)
    Michael S.
    +1
    Thanks for elaborating.

    I disagree for two major reasons. First, I think you're confusing cause for effect:
    On a long enough time scale, physical limits will cause ideas for invention to taper off, limiting our physical ability/means to expand. Moreover, cultural limits will cause population to reach equilibrium, and asymptotic limits to comfort will cause consumer appetite to reach equilibrium, which will both limit our desire for expansion as well.

    As we approach that point (which we will on a long enough time scale), the number of entrepreneurial ideas will diminish and approach zero. In the process, the number of loans will taper off as well, since there will be no reason to borrow. As a result, expectations regarding interest rates will be gradually reduced until reaching zero. After all, interest rates are not eternal or inherently guaranteed by capitalism to remain at any particular level.

    In other words, capitalism allows for eventual 0% interest and the complete uselessness of investing money, once all investment opportunities dry up. At that point, the compound interest of banking will not force a choice between more growth or collapse. Instead, banks and interest will have increasingly outlived their usefulness as that day approaches, and they, and only they, wil...









    Thanks for elaborating.

    I disagree for two major reasons. First, I think you're confusing cause for effect:
    On a long enough time scale, physical limits will cause ideas for invention to taper off, limiting our physical ability/means to expand. Moreover, cultural limits will cause population to reach equilibrium, and asymptotic limits to comfort will cause consumer appetite to reach equilibrium, which will both limit our desire for expansion as well.

    As we approach that point (which we will on a long enough time scale), the number of entrepreneurial ideas will diminish and approach zero. In the process, the number of loans will taper off as well, since there will be no reason to borrow. As a result, expectations regarding interest rates will be gradually reduced until reaching zero. After all, interest rates are not eternal or inherently guaranteed by capitalism to remain at any particular level.

    In other words, capitalism allows for eventual 0% interest and the complete uselessness of investing money, once all investment opportunities dry up. At that point, the compound interest of banking will not force a choice between more growth or collapse. Instead, banks and interest will have increasingly outlived their usefulness as that day approaches, and they, and only they, will be forced to adapt or downsize until dissolving. (One possibility for adaption: Full-reserve banking. People might still have use for storing their money in a bank for safekeeping, but lack of investment opportunity would change the business model for banking, and they'd charge people for the safety of guarding their money and the convenience of electronic access, etc.)

    This seems unthinkable in our current economy for two reasons:
    a.) We're nowhere near the end to entrepreneurial ideas, so it's hard to visualize.
    b.) Debt-based fiat money has artificially placed the banking system at the heart of the economy, making it hard to mentally separate the ideas of banking and a free market economy. After all, banks can only disappear without wiping out the currency if the currency is based on a unit of value. Under the current debt-based system, the end of banking and debt would cause the currency to evaporate. Still, banks are only useful so long as there is an actual purpose to investment, and an actual free market would allow them to die off when their time came.

    Second, even when the economy doesn't expand as a whole, there is still another good reason to invest capital before we reach stable equilibrium: Churn. Sometimes one company becomes inefficient enough to justify investing in another to replace it, and we regularly see situations where one company rises to the fall of another. Long after net economic growth ends, we'll still be dealing with churn on the way toward a stable equilibrium. Investing in these newer ventures provides an opportunity for positive return. The corresponding decline of an older company doesn't mean it's pointless for banks to loan out money either (or receive interest, or pay interest on deposits), because the older company may have already "had a good run" and paid most of its debts before outliving its economic usefulness.

    Going further, churn happens with buildings, roads, etc. as well...basically any manmade structures we rely upon: Even after actual economic growth stops, new houses and buildings will need to be built to replace structures that grow old and unstable enough to warrant demolition. This form of churn will similarly allow for investment and interest without net economic growth...unless/until almost everyone becomes rich enough to rebuild these kind of things without borrowing money from a bank, at least. (That would require a lot of automated labor though. After all, if government policy permits, material goods will eventually become sufficiently abundant to sustain comfortable lifestyles for everyone without anywhere near full labor utilization. If we ever get to the point where we're "that rich," actual human labor will come at a high premium, so rebuilding structures without robots, etc. could remain expensive enough to require loans.)

    (As a side note, interest doesn't just accumulate in a lender's pocket forever. It recirculates throughout the rest of the economy. Given a value-based currency, the same dollar could be used to pay off trillions of dollars of debt and interest.)
    (more)
  • Warren ... Michael S. 2013/02/27 04:15:31
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    +2
    In a steady state economy, it is not just interest rates, but profits that will also tend to zero. Such a state is physically possible, but it is in no way or shape capitalism anymore. Capitalism, by definition, is a system where ownership of capital is used to extract wealth from the economy. The incentive only exists when capital can be extracted faster than it is being spent. This only happens when the economy is growing.
  • Michael S. Warren ... 2013/02/27 04:30:35 (edited)
    Michael S.
    +1
    Indeed, profits and interest rates would both approach zero once we approached a total steady-state economy: That is, an economy which not only has zero growth but zero churn as well. (That said, while profits would approach zero, they might not actually reach zero. The extent and effects of this depend on just how egalitarian the stable ownership of capital is once the market reaches a steady state. That's a bit outside the scope of the discussion, and I'm sure we have a different understanding of the free market's ultimate impact on the distribution of ownership...but either way, I think we'd agree that any remaining profits would have to be given to shareholders and recirculated through the economy via their spending every year for the economy to truly qualify as "steady-state.")

    If you're arguing that capitalism would cease to be called capitalism once it reached a complete steady state, perhaps you're correct, but it would be more of a semantic argument than anything else, since capitalism (free market capitalism at least) doesn't inherently preclude reaching such a state. In terms of semantic battles, I actually prefer defending the free market rather than capitalism: All the free market requires is voluntary human activity in the absence of violence and coercion, s...



    Indeed, profits and interest rates would both approach zero once we approached a total steady-state economy: That is, an economy which not only has zero growth but zero churn as well. (That said, while profits would approach zero, they might not actually reach zero. The extent and effects of this depend on just how egalitarian the stable ownership of capital is once the market reaches a steady state. That's a bit outside the scope of the discussion, and I'm sure we have a different understanding of the free market's ultimate impact on the distribution of ownership...but either way, I think we'd agree that any remaining profits would have to be given to shareholders and recirculated through the economy via their spending every year for the economy to truly qualify as "steady-state.")

    If you're arguing that capitalism would cease to be called capitalism once it reached a complete steady state, perhaps you're correct, but it would be more of a semantic argument than anything else, since capitalism (free market capitalism at least) doesn't inherently preclude reaching such a state. In terms of semantic battles, I actually prefer defending the free market rather than capitalism: All the free market requires is voluntary human activity in the absence of violence and coercion, so its definition doesn't "demand" a capitalistic structure any longer than people find it useful. Capitalism on the other hand does imply trying to alternately or simultaneously capitalize on labor or ownership of capital, and that definition sort of breaks down as you approach a steady state, even by entirely free market means.

    That said, churn will still exist long after the net size of the economy plateaus, possibly forever (hopefully forever, actually, since complete economic stagnation could imply complete cultural stagnation), so profits and interest will both likely exist long after net growth ends. Regardless of the economic system, we'd have to be extremely advanced to actually reach a perfect steady state, to the point where we lived in indestructible structures that would never require replacement, etc. ;)

    Considering how advanced we'd have to be to eliminate all churn, I think we're going to achieve interstellar travel long before we reach 100% stability on Earth. On the one hand, that will create new reasons and capabilities for growth. On the other hand, it will also open up so many resources that entropy will end all activity in the universe before we could ever exhaust them anyway, rendering the whole discussion moot. ;)
    (more)
  • Warren ... Michael S. 2013/02/27 03:08:45
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    +1
    I also agree with your comments about fiat currency and debt expansion, but these are vain attempts to forestall economic collapse, not the root cause.
  • wildemanne 2013/02/26 20:39:08
  • Gordon 2013/02/26 20:38:19
    Yes
    Gordon
    +1
    But, I hope that it does not collapse. Those of us who have worked at honest jobs will be hit the hardest. Lifetime welfare abusers will murder us to get what little we have left. black looters black looters
  • Mopvyzo Gordon 2013/02/26 21:36:00
    Mopvyzo
    +2
    They just might.
  • poet4justice 2013/02/26 20:31:58
    No
    poet4justice
    only if you keep wishing for
  • Murph 2013/02/26 20:04:43
    Yes
    Murph
    +2
    If Obama has his way then, yes. We are headed for collapse.
  • gkirmani 2013/02/26 19:33:43
    I don't give a sh*t.
    gkirmani
    +2
    dont care a fly about US.....it is bound to go down because of its silly blood thirsty policy............ who cares for them

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/11/20 22:16:34

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals