Posted on 07/27/2005 6:21:50 AM PDT by A. Pole
I hate to say it, but since Clinton's out of office it's like the four horsemen of the apocalypse around here.
War, recession, 911, anthrax, North Korea and the Bomb, the loss of rights, massive loss of jobs to oursourcing, draconic bankruptcy laws, illegal Immigration worse than ever,--
Even talk radio's turned lousy . . .
It hasn't been pretty.
I find myself nostalgic for the says when all I had to worry about was Monica Lewinsky.
It's been very depressing in America these last few years.
Bump! Ya now, these days I think that the old Clinton days were not so bad. At yeast Republicans acted like Republicans.
Cheer up, there's still Hillary! (it was a joke, a joke, okay?)
It's been very depressing in America these last few years.
Agree.
You asked,
"Which of these is as free trade nuts as we. Japan, China, Korea, any EU country, Scandinavia?"
Consider these statistics from 2004:
Country:
You asked,
"Which of these is as free trade nuts as we. Japan, China, Korea, any EU country, Scandinavia?"
Consider these statistics from 2004:
Country: -------US--- ---Japan--- ---UK--- ---Denmark
Pop(inMM) --293.5-- ---127.8-- ---59.4-- ---5.4
GNI(in$MMM) --11,667.5--4,623.4--2,140.9--243.0
Imports(in$MMM) 1,200.0 541.4 363.6 54.5
GNI/capita $39,752 $36,187 $36,039 $45,033
Imports/capita $4,088.49 $4,237 $6,121 $10,093
Imports/GNI 10.3% 11.7% 17.0% 22.4%
It should be obvious that free trade and "first world status" are DIRECTLY related.
But, if you STILL don't "get it", why don't you do a similar statistical analysis of North Korea, Myammar and Bangladesh?
Since I already know what you'll find, I'll use your own words:
"Put up or shut up"
"Are you REALLY suggesting that all of those "blue-collar" workers who sent their kids to college to enable those kids to get "white-collar" jobs were WRONG?
If so, I gather you don't have much faith in the American Dream."
Except most of those blue-collar workers, when they were imagining the white-collar jobs their kids would be in, were probably seeing management and engineering positions for UNITED STATES BASED MANUFACTURING PLANTS! And the American dream isn't worth much if it ends up under the treads of a foreign power's tanks.
"And would you please state just how many new battleships it will take to keep every single drugged-up loser from detonating himself on a commuter bus?"
I see you're another one that's so blinded by the business aspect of everything, as well as a fixation on terrorism as the only physical threat, that you don't see the rapidly growing threat China poses to this country. With every passing year the military technological and personnel-skill gap between China and USA closes by two years (with 90-95% of that gap-closure due to free-trader technology & funding investments). You may think that mass warfare will never re-occur, but the Chinese are smart enough to know that it can and will. And their first order of business is to make sure free-traders like you do half the job for them by undermining their opponent's industry before warfare ever starts.
The Chinese are nothing if not smart and cognizant of the lessons of history (since they have thousands of years of it). They learned the lessons of the Second War. They suffered terrible causalities at the hands of an enemy who was unafraid to wage mass warfare. But they also learned that the very same enemy who inflicted such pain on them came ultimately to grief because they were unable to sustain a prolonged war against an industrial power with an established industrial base that could be shifted to a wartime production basis reasonably quickly.
The Chinese know enough not to make that mistake. If they ever do engage in a prolonged shooting war they will do so with a robust industrial base. It is ironic that this country with it's so-called "free trade" worshippers will have in large part enabled that.
I still think they would rather win the war without fighting it (i.e., economic warfare), but if we make any kind of military countermove (like vigorously defending Taiwan), we're going to receive it. A nation of burger flippers and lawyers filing lawsuits won't cut it against overwhelming air and ground forces.
Weather today in pfony1ville ..... numbers flurry and cloudiness.
Two of the three countries you cite have positive trade balances and the the third is minusculey negative compared to ours.
Nowhere to you give any picture of the level of protectionism in these nations.
Hey, ya gotta admit that your first point was a "stretch"...
Didn't "blue collar" parents also hope that their college-educated progeny would become doctors, dentists, ministers, teachers, architects, accountants, bankers, lawyers, stock-brokers, real estate moguls, scientists and civil engineers?
And, as you probably know, America has nothing like Germany's public "vocational schools", which combine hands-on apprenticeship programs with classwork to create highly-skilled manufacturing workers, who have NOT gone to college.
IMHO, the saying, "If you plant potatoes, you get potatoes" applies equally well to the vocational training we choose to provide our youth. Or do you think that sophomore (ic?) classes in "Gender Awareness" are good preparation for operating a high frequency induction furnace in a steel mill?
A separate, but significant issue, involves the high real estate and inventory taxes imposed on American industry by revenue-hungry politicians. It seems they have (conveniently) forgotten the tale of "The Goose that Laid the Golden Eggs". And forgotten that industry CAN vote. Industry "votes with its feet".
IMHO, your second point (which I will over-simplify as "We can't defeat China without battle-ships!)" overlooks the fact that we are engaged in a sort of "cold war" with China right NOW.
One of our "campaigns" in the current "war" is to integrate China so deeply into the global economy, that China's leaders will come to realize that a "hot, shooting war" would be suicidal for their economy and, therefore, for any hope of victory.
Another subtle "campaign" is our use of the rising prosperity and education of the Chinese people, first as a counter-balance to the isolationism of the Chinese military, and second as a angry force to overthrow the corrupt governing elite -- in time.
It's been said that the Normandy Invasion would not have succeeded if Hitler had A-bombs. Not only does the US have plenty of such weapons, but they are already "on station" in waters surrounding China. Therefore, China's rulers have to consider whether the process of assembling an invasion army (which our satellites would plainly SEE), might create an irresistable "target of opportunity"...
I hope that explains why I am less inclined to panic over China's "threat" than you seem to be.
Have a nice weekend...
It is the retail outlet that takes this big profit, with very little profit for the manufacturers. This is why manufacturing dissapears from the country, not the sales of the product. The only people who "take the hit" are the manufacturers and those they employ.
You aren't tracking this issue very well.
Computers are used for more than just presenting screens. They were here long before that use surfaced. I work in the industry that makes electronic gizmos, like cell phones, set-top boxes for cable TV, medical instrumentation, and so on. These are not web-page applications, but hard core engineering: electronics, math, physics, chemistry. This type of software is very different than what you perception of software seems to be.
Yes, I believe it is one big part of a mulitfacted problem...and a particular pet peeve of mine regarding the education and training of America's youth.
Check out this long-delayed report now finally released...and being buried by our MSM.
Is it interesting to recall in contrast the cheery prognostications of uber-liberal Thomas PM Barnett, over at the USN War College (before finally getting fired this last December when he openly supported John Kerry), and ex-Freeper Poohbah, all through the last decade that such a war "will never happen."
China-U.S. Sea Showdown Predicted
By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS And ANDREW SCUTRO
DEFENSE NEWS, July 25, 2005
On July 19, the Pentagon finally released its annual assessment of
China’s military strength. It was expected months earlier but was reportedly held up because of its extreme sensitivity.
The 45-page, congressionally mandated report for 2005 finds that the People’s Republic has continued modernizing its armed forces to close a “perceived technology gap between modern Western forces and its own,” while refining its doctrine to include asymmetric and unconventional means.
The report estimates China’s 2005 defense budget to be $90 billion, behind only the U.S. and Russia, “the largest in Asia” and just a fraction of the U.S.’s roughly half-trillion-dollar defense budget.
The report — vetted by other agencies and departments — includes inventories of China’s intercontinental ballistic missile force, which can hit all of the United States except southern Florida. Its expanding naval and air forces as well as geopolitical considerations, like the demand for oil to fuel its economy, are highlighted.
Of particular interest to the U.S. Navy is China’s acquisition of eight quiet Russian-built, Kilo-class submarines and four Sovremenny-class destroyers. Any Chinese aspirations to create a global navy seem to be remote with the absence of aircraft carriers or significant replenishment assets.
Also of concern has been China’s possible development of over-the- horizon sensors and guided ballistic missiles for use against ships, although few details are given in the report.
China’s naval buildup is a natural consequence of its strategic position, an Asian affairs analyst told a Washington audience June 20.
“From a Beijing point of view,” retired U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Michael McDevitt said at an American Enterprise Institute seminar on future U.S. Navy strategy, “the vast majority of their outstanding, unresolved sovereignty or strategic issues are maritime in nature.”
As a result, McDevitt said, “control of the western Pacific by the U.S. Navy is certainly the greatest potential spoiler” of China’s ability to deal with those issues.
McDevitt, an East Asia expert with the Center for Naval Analyses’ Center for Strategic Studies, Washington, said the greatest combat threat the Chinese pose to the United States is a “tremendous capability to turn out a lot of conventionally tipped ballistic missiles.” Should the Chinese develop an ability to maneuver those missiles — rather than have them simply fall from a ballistic target track — “that would be a significant denial capability,” he said.
Bob Work, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said concern about Chinese military expansion does not automatically translate into conflict. He said the U.S. Navy logically would take the measure of any rising and potentially competitive military power.
The Navy wants to maintain a “hedge against a disruptive maritime competition in China.” But, he added, such a hedge “doesn’t mean you have to fight them.”
McDevitt recommended several courses for the Navy to counter China’s rise in maritime power:
• Maintain air superiority in the Taiwan Strait as a barrier to Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
• Prepare to disrupt the targeting system China would use to control ballistic missiles, and develop a capability to destroy the missiles in flight.
• Improve its anti-submarine capabilities.
• Move more nuclear attack subs from Atlantic to Pacific.
The model for Chinese naval development seems to be “the Soviet Union sea-denial strategy, updated with Chinese characteristics,” McDevitt said, noting such a force would feature land-based aircraft carrying cruise missiles. The strategy includes using subs offensively, similar to what the Soviets did, and creating a “modest” amphibious capability “to deal with the Taiwan problem.”
The primary difference with the Chinese, McDevitt said, is a developing effort to create maneuverable ballistic missiles, something the Soviets never did. The threat, he said, is “the thing I think has most people in the U.S. Navy concerned.” But the missile’s targeting network “would be highly vulnerable to disruption.”
Well, I see you didn't "put up".
And I see you changed the topic from "free trade" to "trade deficits". Not that I CARE, mind you. I read this change of topic as a tacit concession by you that the link between "free trade" and "national wealth" is both positive and CAUSATIVE. So that's a debating point won by me.
Still, I would have thought that a HIGH ratio of Imports to GNI would have been sufficient proof of a LOW level of trade "protectionism -- at least, to a logical person.
Anyway, if you are now "sure" that you want to talk about "trade deficits", please let me know.
De-bunking 17th-century "Merchantilism" is EASY....
GWB had a wonderful opportunity when he first took office to rescind much of the ill foisted on our society by Xlinton. Could and should have reversed by simple executive order all of Xlinton's...especially the last-second ones, and challenged all the pardsons improperly issued. Could and should have had a Blue Ribbon task force launched, chaired by Edwin Meese, to publicly (and in closed hearing) investigate treasonable conduct by the outgoing Administration, rescind NAFTA, rescind WTO, rescind all agreements and understandings with the PRC. Rescind the Xlinton feminization of, and gay right enshrinement in the military.
The ONLY major reversal of Xlinton policies that GWB has effectuated was termination of the ABM Treaty shackles with the non-existent Soviet state.
"And would you please state just how many new battleships it will take to keep every single drugged-up loser from detonating himself on a commuter bus?"
Drugged-up losers don't detonate themselves up on buses, Muslims do. Far more likely to find a terrorist at a Mosque than a Grateful Dead concert.
U.S. House Members, Experts Air China Concerns
By WILLIAM MATTHEWS, Defense News, July 28, 2005
The Pentagon’s report on rising military power in China is arming members of the U.S. Congress with new arguments for saving favored military projects at home.
For Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn., news that China’s submarine force is growing in size and sophistication is ammunition for the fight to save a submarine base in his congressional district.
“China already has more attack submarines than the United States,” Simmons said, citing Pentagon statistics. By 2025, China could have a three-to-one advantage.
“There is an alarming disconnect between the ambitious steps of the Chinese Navy and the Pentagon's shipbuilding plan used to justify closing sub base New London,” Simmons said after a July 27 House Armed Services Committee hearing on Chinese military power.
Del. Madeleine Bordallo, D-Guam, said a Chinese submarine has already been detected snooping around the military stronghold she represents. “Fortunately, it’s noisy,” thus easy for the U.S. military to track, she said.
At about 1,500 miles from China, Guam would be on the front line of any Sino-U.S. power struggle, Bordallo said. She would like to see Guam armed with F/A-22 stealth fighters, minesweepers and an aircraft carrier, she said.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, a longtime advocate of robust U.S. spending on defense hardware, warned that China is buying Russian arms — including “Sovremenny-class guided missile destroyers, sometimes referred to as carrier-killers” — and advanced fighter aircraft. They’re developing new space capabilities and expanding short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles.
“The United States cut defense spending for a decade while China’s increased,” Hunter complained. “This year, the president’s budget proposed cutting back on the F/A-22 Raptor while China is expanding its fleet of Sukhoi-30 Flankers.”
At the same time, a senior Chinese general “threatened to attack our cities with nuclear weapons if we intervened to stop aggression against Taiwan,” Hunter said. “Clearly, there’s something wrong with this picture.”
Committee members sounded far more alarmed about China’s improving military capability than the U.S. Defense Department does.
A report released July 19 by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld describes China as “modernizing its forces, emphasizing preparations to fight and win short-duration, high-intensity conflicts along China’s periphery.”
But the report does not depict China as entirely hostile. “We see a China facing a strategic crossroads,” it says. “The United States welcomes the rise of a peaceful and prosperous China.”
Two China experts called before the committee emphasized China’s combativeness.
Richard Fisher of the International Assessment and Strategy Center warned that “the government of China is in the midst of perhaps the largest military buildup the world has witnessed since the end of the Cold War.”
In addition to modern fighters, submarines and surface ships, Fisher said the Chinese military has “ground-based laser and new direct-ascent anti-satellite weapons intended to take out key U.S. space assets.”
Submarine-launched non-nuclear missiles and army special forces “could be used against U.S. bases as distant as Hawaii, Alaska and the U.S. West Coast,” he said.
Fisher warned of a new “maneuverable ballistic missile” that could be used against U.S. ships in waters around China. And he said missiles armed with “non-nuclear radio frequency warheads” could be used to destroy the electronic systems on U.S. ships, leaving them helpless in the water.
Heritage Foundation scholar John Tkacik said China’s expanding submarine fleet is highly worrisome.
“By my count, China will have a net gain of 35 submarines over the next 15 years,” he said. Chinese shipyards will probably out-produce U.S. shipyards, so that by 2020, China could have a fleet of 50 modern attack submarines compared with a U.S. fleet of fewer than 40, he said.
China “will likely have a home-field advantage” in any East Asian conflict as early as 2010, Tkacik said.
Franklin Kramer, who was the Pentagon’s chief of international security affairs during the Clinton administration, struck a more measured note.
“There is no question that the Chinese military is a potential adversary of the United States in the Taiwan Strait,” he said. But “the full context in which to understand China’s military power is multidimensional.”
China has been helpful to the United States in the war against terrorism, cooperating in intelligence matters and helping to interdict terrorist financial organizations, he said. And economically, the United States and China have very close ties.
As for military conflict with China, “I don’t think it is at all inevitable,” Kramer said. “An important goal of the United States is to help shave the decisions made by China.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.