About A Yet Undelivered Presidential Address
From the desk of George Handlery on Mon, 2011-09-12 10:11
Sovereignty, security, and their protection by the UN.
1. Duly Noted must begin with a surreal suggestion. The very fact that it can be stated and that the reader might, after reflection, find the “surreal suggestion” realistic, tells much about current condition of America. About that condition, an introductory comment is needed: The distress of the US does not have its origins in society, its order, or its will to perform. The political system and its management by its insiders are largely responsible for the fix. The “American” is responsible only to the extent that he is inclined to be enticed by chimeras. Therefore, he runs the risk of giving power to those that are unable to use it constructively.
To get a handle on the crisis of the economy Obama needs to restore the shaken faith whose lack feeds the crisis. To create confidence and to appear to be credible, the President must appear in a non-partisan role. Being above politics would give him personal standing and drum up trust for whatever measures he might propose. To achieve this Obama, who is not a bête noir of the writer, needs to devote his next speech to the ways of how the water can be bailed out of the sinking ship. The gist of the opening sentence of that address should be ”In the interest of overcoming the challenge that faces us a nation, I will not seek reelection”.
2. Peking has a record. One component is that it is not moderating the mercurial and aggressive behavior of North Korea. This is a notable posture for a power that regards itself as paramount in its neighborhood and for one that wishes to act as a guarantor of the security and of orderly procedures in her region.
China’s indulgence for Pyongyang’s adventurism that comes spiced with nuclear threats is not a consequence of lacking influence. If misbehavior makes the PRC turn off the spigot then checkmated Baby Kim, elevator shoes included, is cut back to size. Yes, North Korea is a useful proxy and her tantrums might be of tactical value to China. Kim’s outbursts create turbulances that make other countries seek her good offices to mediate. The upshot bolsters Peking’s pursued pre eminence in South East Asia. Furthermore, the uncertainties created also shake and confuse potential competitors. However, these all prove to be secondary considerations. Decisive is that, in the final analysis, Peking is aware that its system and that of Pyongyang are related.
In general terms, the support of friends and of those with whom political genes are shared, might demonstrate consistence and reliability. Such steadfastness can also entice to make costly mistakes. The support of Gaddafi on his way to the last stand in the last bunker reveals what is meant.
3. A considerable number of countries, not all of them small and inherently weak enough to be indefensible, share a characteristic. Relative to their potential they like to leave underdeveloped the means by which they can protect their interests and defend their existence. After the lessons of the last world war, this appears to be surprising. In that era, some weak systems hoped that their studied and advertised lack of military insignificance would shield them. They hoped strong neighbors would see their essentially unilateral disarmament as an indication that they mean no harm. Such countries were quickly overrun. That was because even if we prefer to forget, aggressors are not provoked by the risks that emanate from armed neighbors but by the weakness of the prey. In the same period of crisis, some small states that were determined to maintain themselves escaped the lot of the ones whose first line of defense was to appear unconditionally harmless. Another lesson that is swept under the rug is that it is too late to develop the instruments that can fend off the peril when the tiger already pounces upon you. Nowadays, there is no undeniable danger lurking in the bushes. Additionally, the dangers that are building up can be ignored or discounted by “PC-Think”. Therefore, it is easy to deny the need for protection –whether that is political or military.
Currently, the apostles of inaction are, if warned of the price to be paid should their theory fail, inclined to vest their hope for protection in the mechanisms of the United Nations’ system. Indeed, as a reaction to the world war’s experience, the UN is meant to be a guarantor of the member states’ integrity. However, especially in that role, the UN does not have a convincing record. The performance would be worse if there would not have been outside of the UN a number of mutual protection alliances lead by a superpower. These were pledged to provide for the collective defense of their members relying on very traditional means.
Regarding this role of making the world and its small countries safe from unopposed aggression, the UN presents disturbing signals to the observer. In the daily operation of the world organization, it is difficult to persuade some UN-members to condemn governments that massacre their own people. This is especially the case when these show enough resolution to indicate that words will not bring them back on the path of virtue.
An example is Syria. On the fourth of August, she has been put on the agenda for symbolic verbal censure by the world organization. A number of major countries -notably all are rated as “up and coming movers” of world affairs- were reluctant to let the UN send out smoke signals of disapproval. Revealingly, the cabal of the reluctant has not seriously doubted that a government that formally represents its machine-gunned subjects on the East River is perpetrating mass murder. Inconsistency might be suspected since the facts were not doubted and that, nevertheless, the appropriate action was prevented. There is a way to explain what appears to be a contradiction between the acknowledged situation and the response it elicited.
Saying “no” makes sense for Russia, China, India, Brazil and the moral great power, South Africa. Inaction has a logical basis if one assumes that one day some of these powers might find themselves forced to imitate Baghdad’s method of ensuring the submission of their reluctant masses. In one of my languages, there is a proverb. It alleges that crows do not gouge out the eyes of other crows. International relations confirm the rule. Regarding security, this implies that, ultimately, a community’s integrity is guaranteed largely by the efficacy of its own means.
@KA
Submitted by mpresley on Sat, 2011-10-01 14:43.
Firstly, the US economy is not monolithic or even unified to the extent that GDP matters less and less.
When looking at spending one must consider all government spending. If one looks at Federal, State, Local, direct transfers (such as Medicaid), and includes pensions, debt interest, plus the usual defense/welfare etc., some staggering figures manifest. In 1900 total spending as a percent of GDP (the economy was 20.6 billion) was 3.05%. In 2000 it was 32.56%. In 2010 it was 40.02%.
How this situation can matter less and less is not very well understood. At what level would it matter?
Continued quantitative easing, albeit at a reduced level, combined with spending focused on economic development (i.e. advanced education, science, technology, etc.) rather than transfer payments is required.
I would argue that what is needed is for the market to set rates. Wage and price controls never work. QE, in fact the entire Fed system, is simply a method devised in order to control the price of money. At this stage of the game, we do not understand what the real price of money should be. The Fed “gives it away” at essentially no interest. But other than banks who are sitting on bad loans, and hence enjoy the cash infusion in order to cover their worthless assets (with ironically, worthless dollars), who would want to take out a loan for productive purposes, today? That is, to start a business?
I understand that unsecured consumer debt in on the rise. Why not? Enjoy a flat screen TV for nothing, and then default. Live like there is no tomorrow. It is good for the center, why then is it not good for the periphery?
Also, any government spending is a transfer payment. And anything the government subsidizes increases in number, along with its cost. I know this seems somewhat counter-intuitive, but it is nevertheless the case. The cost goes up because of the increased (albeit artificial) demand. An anecdote: I happened to be talking to a young woman the other day. She was of less than average IQ, naïve, but nice. She was working part-time in a clothing store. For some reason she began to tell me her story: she had recently earned a “BA degree” in Hip Hop Record Production from a private technology school. Her “studies” were all via student loans, for which she now has about $50,000.00 of debt racked up. It will never be paid back, but defaulted on. So she does what she did before she became educated—that is, working part time in a department store.
re: Presidential Address # 2
Submitted by marcfrans on Wed, 2011-09-14 23:43.
@ Kapitein Andre
1) Frankly, your economic reasoning is wrong. The US economy is definitely "in a crisis", in the sense that overall nominal GDP is stagnating (or barely growing), and per capita GDP has been falling for several years in a row. Given that the stance of fiscal policy has been extremely 'expansionary' (with incredible unsustainable annual fiscal deficits of over 10% of GDP for 3 years in a row) and monetary policy has been likewise very expansionary (as reflected in a massive increase in the balance sheet total of the Federal Reserve), the conclusion can only be that the crisis is rooted in a lack of confidence and certainly not in a lack of 'stimulus'. In short, what we have today in the USA is a 'strike of capital', due to the uncertainty created by absurdly destructive and confusing policies pursued by the Obama Administration on several fronts, especially during its first two years (when the Executive and both chambers of Congres were controlled by Obama and his radical allies). Your references to regional diversity in the US, multinatinal corporations, globalisation, China, Brazil, Sweden and Canada...are largely irrelevant to the issue at hand (i.e. the economic crisis in the US).
You are also way off-base in (A) thinking that Obamacare has been Obama's "sole initiative" (how about him wastefully expanding the federal component of 'general government' by over 5 percentage points of GDP in merely 2 years!?), and (B) in your parroting of the leftist media's deliberate misrepresentation/demonization of the Tea Party. However, I do agree with you that Obama has been an "incredibly weak" President (especially w.r.t. foreign policy), and I do share your hope that the next Presidential election will be between Romney and a "centrist and economy focused Democrat". The second part of that hope is very unlikely to materialise.
2) I think that your opinion of US military power in Korea is highly exaggerated and, hence, that it cannot figure as much in the strategic thinking of the Politbureau in Beijing.
RE: Presidential address
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Wed, 2011-09-14 07:26.
1. The US economy is not in crisis due to a lack of confidence. Firstly, the US economy is not monolithic or even unified to the extent that GDP matters less and less. Some elements of the US economy – especially large multinational corporations usually listed on the S&P 500 – are thriving, and other elements – especially those connected to the housing and derivatives bubble – are not. The 2008-2009 subprime mortgage crisis and resulting equity market collapse and economic recession finally brought globalization to the US. Just as China has a first and second-world economy along its coastline and a fourth-world economy in its hinterland, and a prosperous Brazilian middle class is surrounded by slum-infested mountainsides, the US economy will move at varying speeds. Secondly, the US is not in a position to merely rein in its spending and export more, as Sweden and Canada did in the 1990s. It is too big and a lack of US spending will have a deletorious effect on global growth. Continued quantitative easing, albeit at a reduced level, combined with spending focused on economic development (i.e. advanced education, science, technology, etc.) rather than transfer payments is required. Thirdly, although Obama has proven himself to be an incredibly weak President – whose sole “initiative” was a watered-down version of Ted Kennedy’s ideas on health reforms – the Tea Party seems woefully ignorant of what needs to be done and how to do it. Hopefully Romney gets the Republican nomination, or a strongly centrist and economy-focused Democrat is nominated over Obama.
Unfortunately for any Presidential contender, the problem has been coming on for decades, and the solution will require decades to be realized without. Party politics will likely result in ineffective policy and volatility in the US and global economy, to speak nothing of the markets. Fortunately for Washington, the lack of developed capital markets in the BRIC countries and periphery Eurozone chaos will work in its favor for the near-term.
2. South Korean intelligence indicates that the PLA is preparing to roll into the DPRK as soon as Kim dies, as Beijing does not believe that the “heir apparent” is even capable enough to feed the army, most of which is starving. If the Maoists in Beijing found the Kim dynasty useful, this usefulness expired decades ago and only the fear of a humanitarian crisis on its borders or the expansion of South Korean and US military power to the Yalu River, keeps the Kims in power. Basically the DPRK’s future needs to be negotiated between the PRC and the US, whether it is unification or Finlandization.
Bete noire
Submitted by dchamil on Mon, 2011-09-12 14:40.
Obama is not your bete noire (black beast)? Dear me, I think we need a different figure of speech!
...a more mundane purpose to it all.
Submitted by mpresley on Mon, 2011-09-12 11:08.
Indeed, as a reaction to the world war’s experience, the UN is meant to be a guarantor of the member states’ integrity.
I do not think this is really the case. At least now. Whatever its original intention, it is now simply a forum for smaller States to complain about larger, and a means to effect a transfer of wealth from the latter. Also, it is an effective bureaucracy for creating spoils among its administrators. There may even exist a few UN ideologues naively believing in a One World government that could be administered under the auspices of the UN. But if they exist they are not very important, and no one could ever take them seriously.