Decline And Fall Of The American Empire

I'd take a look at some of the details and see what's important to you.What is so great about the American Empire?It's vast military spread over the globe? - This still exists, is this what makes it still an empire?People looking to America for leadership? - This left a long time ago. The US is not "the leader" of any other country. The US has only been seen as "a leader" as much as any of the other G7 (and more) countries around the world for the last 30+ years now. Currently, the US is seen as much less a leader than most countries.Living in freedom and happiness? - I can't remember the last time polls of "the greatest countries to live in" had America near the top.
But, does this even matter to being an Empire?When was the last time France, Spain, England, Finland or Canada or pretty much any decent country was "an Empire?"
They seem to be pretty free and happy places to live.
Why can't America be a free and happy place to live without worrying so much about being "an Empire?"Being "an Empire" seems entirely overrated, I don't see why anyone would even want to be in one.

Yeah.Sounds like what happened during the last presidency, too though. "The world pays next to no attention..."
It's just that the last guy understood that a bunch of 'thundering rhetoric' isn't for serious country-to-country communication. Oh, I think you have reason to worry about your costs of living increasing.
Just as I do.
And just as people in France, Spain, Germany, Japan... also do.I just don't think such worrying is connected in any way with the US being "an Empire" or not.If you're worried about your costs of living. I think focusing on the falling of whatever-Empire-you-consider-the-US-to-still-be is unhelpful. Instead, you should focus on those things that affect your costs of living. Like electing leaders that show support for things like increasing rich-taxes, decreasing poor-taxes, building infrastructure, moving towards some sort of universal heath care system...All those things seem to be do-able, or fail-able regardless of how well your military is doing or whether or not other countries are listening to you.

Can competition increase value?If CS's one buyer is willing to pay $200 for the rights of the trees...
Well, what if his other neighbor hears of this and is now willing to pay $300 for the rights of the trees?
And then the original buyer decides he's willing to pay $400 for the rights?What labour increases the value in any bidding war?I agree that labour is a good way (perhaps basic? fundamental? original? majority?) to increase/create value.
But the only? That seems... difficult to defend.

When is a price "final?"CE "actually paid" $100 originally, but that wasn't "final" because someone "actually paid" a higher price later?If CE owns the property for 10 years, does that $100 become final?Then if someone buys the lumber rights for $200... is that $200 final?
What if the sale goes through, then the other neighbor purchases it for $300, is that the final price?
Then the first buyer buys it back again for $400. Now it's final?
How do you know if it's not going to be sold again tomorrow, or next week, or when near death?Now CE's price wasn't final, or 50% off... but it was actually 75% off? Or maybe all purchases are an unknown non-final % off "real value" because we don't know when someone might want something and pay more for it? Therefore "value" can never be known?What happens with the current owner sells the rights to his brother for $50 because he knows him? Now CE didn't pay the "real value" because he overpaid?This seems like a definitional run-around just to not admit that, perhaps, value can increase/change without labor.

What about when someone buys the rights to CE's lumber for $200, then the other neighbor buys it off that guy for $300?
Then the first guy buys it back for $400?
Then he sells it to his brother for $50?
And then a lady buys it off him for $75?The rights of the lumber have changed hands... 5 times.
Each time the money was paid for the rights of the lumber.No one has done any labor yet (the trees still stand).Has the value for the rights to the lumber changed at all over this example?I think that it increased, decreased, and then increased again.

For sure, I think that labor increasing value is one of the easiest or most-popular ways.But even "initially" might be wrong.
Maybe in a depression a guy just gave another guy $5.00 because he was feeling charitable. No ditch needed to be dug.Maybe the very first trade was a charitable one.Maybe the very first value increase was when an ape-man saw a natural cave... but then another ape-man saw the same cave.
And a third saw the same cave as well.The first was willing to walk over to it.
The second was willing to fight for it.
The third was willing to kill for it.Nothing happened though... and the third ape-man got the cave.The value of the cave just increased from "walking to it" up to "killing for it" with no labor happening.My point is yes, you can think of all sorts of scenarios where value falls back on labor.
But, you can also think of all sorts of scenarios where value does not fall back on labor.Or, at least, I'm pretty sure I can. I'm not really very economically-inclined. I find a lot of it too abstract for me. So I could easily be making some mistakes and not understanding the concepts well enough.

Did you read this part?

quote:

---

Nothing happened though... and the third ape-man got the cave.

---

Did the value not increase when no labor actually occurred?