Not so Fast, Not so Fast: "YouTube - The total collapse of the U.S. economy is inevitable - Here's why"

There are a number of factors or variables that do not necessarily make a total collapse of the U.S. economy inevitabile. The following is in response to a YouTube video embedded below (after these quick observations):

China has more problems than are generally assumed.

  1. It has huge environmental obstacles.
  2. It's using way too much coal for energy.
  3. It is creating more environmental problems via its huge dam projects.
  4. It has huge unemployment and is ruining much of its small-farm agriculture.
  5. It suffers from rapid desertification.
  6. It will end up spending a much higher percentage on military.
  7. The demands of its people will put pressure on wages and prices and cause higher inflation if it doesn't move to a new economic system.
  8. China's currency is going to have to float or face tariffs, etc. When it does, its exports will become more expensive and its growth will lessen.
  9. The Chinese people will continue demanding more freedom of expression and eventually begin insisting upon an end to the one-party dictatorship of the Chinese Communist Party, which isn't even "communist" anymore.

The US can change.

  1. The US can embark upon a crash program to get off oil.
  2. The US can move to interest-and-debt-free United States Notes.
  3. The US can pay off its National Debt with those United States Notes.

Other factors

  1. At one point not too long ago, most of the world was predicting that Japan would be the new World Super Economic Power. It didn't happen.
  2. India, Brazil, and Russia are not going to be interested in China becoming hegemonic.
  3. Russia has as much or more in common with Europe than it does with China, and the US will remain closer to Europe than China will be able to become close to Europe for the foreseeable future.
  4. Don't rule out that the US will get its military troops out of combat in Afghanistan and then begin to focus highly negatively upon China. Certainly, if history is any guide, the US will greatly speed up its activities against China before China can overtake the US. The US has been talking for a long time about using full-spectrum military dominance against China. That means including space-based weapons. Some people believe that it is highly likely that a Chinese stealth submarine was responsible for the sea launch of the missile off Los Angeles last year. That may or may not be correct; but if it is, it may have caused the US to heed China for a bit, but it certainly would have sent the war planners into overdrive. War with China would be extremely dangerous because China is nuclear, but waiting may not be seen as an option by the war gamers of the US military. There is also the military Keynesianism aspect where war on a large scale would be a huge stimulus to the US economy and right when there are so many unemployed young men and women ripe for a military draft. (Planned?)
  5. There is always "Regime Change" in China too. As I mentioned, the one-party dictatorship remains a problem for China. If the US can stir up enough internal turmoil clamoring again for democratic rights, etc., the US might win a war without firing a shot. It could so destabilize China that the Chinese economy would suffer greatly. Then it could come to the rescue, provided the Chinese cease working with the Russians to harm the US dollar as the world's reserve currency.

Of course, much of this presupposes that the global Plutocrats don't have it in mind to reduce the US economy to the point where US workers are willing to work for slave wages, which has been the trend ever since Ronald Reagan worked to kill the Air Traffic Controller's Union and Margaret Thatcher worked to destroy the Coal Worker's Union in Britain — all for the sake of the privatizers against the common people and their general welfare. Those same forces though have their eye on China. They have no intention of watching China keep itself from being privatized. Global Plutocrats will definitely seek to rape China.

Therefore, don't count your chickens before they are hatched; and even then, remember how easily they can be stolen and eaten.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in United States Notes. Bookmark the permalink.
    • Cross-comment:

      See also: "Prepping Minds For War Against China":

    • It's interesting how some "leftists" actually think the one-party dictatorship in China shouldn't be rebuked just because the US should be. The fact that the US is hypocritical doesn't mean that China isn't.