They don't do that because they know that it would help *us* far more than them. The near term would suck, no doubt, but a wrecked dollar would erase their trade advantage. If the dollar fell far enough, we would start seeing the outsoursing trend reversed and a rebirth of American manufacturing. Not to mention that a major currency shift would allow us to buy back most of our debt. In twenty years, we'd be better off than we are now.

F_O_R.

That's a point in your favor, SpardaSon.

You also have to keep in mind that for profit insurance companies have to prove that they're spending less and less on medical care each year (percentage wise)

China needs the United States. The situation is rather simple.

Also, the economy of the US is no less doomed than it was in the 30s or 70s. Because China's demographics prevent it from becoming the new hyperpower, no single nation will be able to topple the US as the dominant global power. The EU has no hope of doing so without stronger unity, India is a mess, and Russia is still poor.

To characterize modern aspects of the welfare state as fascist or socialist when socialist is a thinly veiled euphemism for "nazi" is to miss the point on a mind-blowing scale. Was Churchill a nazi? He was a strong proponent of the NHC, so logically he was responsible for a nazi-like or 'socialist' state, right?

Or do we actually give a shit about Hitler because he started a horrific war and was responsible for unfathomable genocide?

Give me a fucking break.

There is no dominant global power on Earth, and there never will be any expect for the United Nations mecanisms (Security council, etc) as a form of preventive measure to stop such behavior against humanity itself.

Last and everyone else who tried were completely obliterated into oblivion. Next & Future included.

Obscenitor, be a tard less often please.  Your posts are almost reasonable when you're not.

National Socialism is very cut and dry, exactly what they were practicing, and only differed from Marxism because the guy was an internationalist.  National Socialism is the economic component in fascism, racial superiority being most of the rest.  Think of them as a cross between utopian socialists, modern capitalists, and the KKK.  They practiced massive social engineering, but were smart enough to realize money made the world go round.  Instead of abolishing free enterprise, they bailed them out and then told them what to do, while keeping their money.  If that sounds familiar, it's because the Bush, and now Obama administration, have done the exact same thing here over the last year and a half, bailing them out, then telling them what to do.  It's text book national socialism, the primary component to fascism.

Hitler being a genocidal maniac doesn't change fascism into anything besides a Marxist inspired form of collectivism.  It also doesn't mean we're not duplicating their early actions by bailing out and then exercising control over our large corporations.

Healthcare being the next industry on their checklist.

There are plenty of modern European nations you could reference if you wanted contemporary examples of the failings of those systems, when you depend on Nazism you're fear mongering, not having an honest conversation.

So I repeat it's complete bullshit and references to Nazi Germany only seek to derail any conversation outside of the most erudite and abstract economic debates, which I assure you this thread and the national debate are not. The USA isn't Nazi Germany and if even if universal health care were implemented it wouldn't become Nazi Germany. The problem with (or beauty of) making that refernce is that it's so easily disproven and so historically inaccurate that it completely nullifies whatever point was attempting to be made with it.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that FDR, the American leader during WWII (or most of it) wasn't a Nazi, Winston Churchill wasn't a Nazi, and that the long shadow of nationalized health care that's been cast over Europe and nearly every other nation that helped defeat Nazi Germany did not result in the practicing of eugenics, the continued destruction of the Jewish people, or any of the other reasons why Germany became so infamous.

When it comes down to it the industries which lost control to the government failed, and they had built themselves in a way which guaranteed they would take an unacceptable amount of people down with them when they did so. Your faith in the corporate world is unfounded, and I'm sure you'll say that my mistrust is equally irrational.

That depends on how you define dominance. 

It's true that many fascists were leftists before they swung to the right, however, the bolded statement is a non-trivial difference. Fascism replaces the class with the state. This commitment to nationalism is the reason for facism's belligerence. It's also -- along with a state commitment to racism, etc. -- what separates, say, Nazi Germany from socialist Europe. State control of industry was certainly a component of facism, but I don't think it's the component that makes it particularly objectionable. 

Where's your swastika, fascist?  I think this is an elegant summary of the point I was trying to get across. 

Exclusive control over anything that isn't of local (as in population needs) interest; multi-national corporations, value of exports above imported necessities (the usual GNP trading balance), industrial capacity, technological innovations unshared, cultural propagation, economic fluctuation(s) by monetary flow of products pricing, plenty more.

Good summary!

There is another difference between fascism and socialism that is worth pointing out.

Fascism is as an ideology solely about power. Socialism is about society. Socialism works with or without a power structure (see the example of Israeli kibbutzim), fascism is a power structure. A group of wanna-be fascists cannot assemble and form a fascist community because by their very act of volunteering they already violate the basic principle of fascism which advocates strict rule of the top over the rest of the people. But it is possible to volunteer to live in a communist society.

The many leftists who swing both ways are in it for the power. They think they know better than everybody else and are attracted by two ideologies that are formed around the idea that some know better than others. But only one of those ideologies specifically denies voluntary participation as a possibility.

So while fascism and socialism CAN work with the same dictatorial form of government, while capitalism cannot, socialism does not demand or even require (in the best of circumstances) such dictatorial control.

Many people freely give to the poor and are thus performing socialism on their own. But it is impossible to volunteer to involuntary servitude, and it is the latter fascism demands of the individual.