PDA

View Full Version : Which would be better for the world?




MsDoodahs
09-11-2007, 07:19 AM
If the US continued on its current path or if the US suffered a major economic blow and could not continue on its current path?

I think the latter would be better for the world.

nexalacer
09-11-2007, 08:14 AM
Me too, I think the second is the only way to avoid WW3... well that and Ron Paul as president.... but WW3 could start before Jan 20th 2009.

micahnelson
09-11-2007, 08:17 AM
Well honestly I could care less whats best for the world, I want what is best for America. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that includes invading every country and bringing in McDonalds.

I just think we should act in our own best interest at all times. Globalism always shortchanges people.

I don't want our country to go through economic crisis, but unfortunately that ship has sailed. I just want to make sure that when we rise from the ashes we are not burdened again by a fiat currency.

nexalacer
09-11-2007, 08:26 AM
I think not starting WW3 would be more in our interests as a country than not having an economic collapse. The repercussions of WW3 would be devastating to everyone.... economic collapse can be worked through, and some people might even get wealthy on it.

Globalists who demand we act in the interests of the rest of the world are fools, but there is nothing wrong with the sustainability revolution's mantra of "act locally, think globally." The world and everything in it is connected, so it's not a bad idea to consider the repercussions of your actions on a global scale. It just might lead you to approaching a better solution in terms of local results.

micahnelson
09-11-2007, 08:34 AM
Agreed. Acting in our own best interest definitely includes avoiding world war 3 =)