May 17, 2010
I Posted the Following at Instapundit Today
CLAIRE BERLINSKI at City Journal wonders why hardly anyone cares about the unread Soviet archives.
PATRICK WINN at the Atlantic says Bangkok looks, smells, and sounds like war.
TONY BADRAN on the shape of things to come with Iran.
AFTER SWEDISH CARTOONIST LARS VILKS was attacked in a theater last week for showing ten seconds of a provocative film offensive to Muslims, his house was set ablaze over the weekend.
MIDDLE EAST democracy advocates are fed up with Obama. If he didn't see that coming, he certainly should have.
REQUIRED READING: My colleague Rick Richman at Commentary agrees with me that Paul Berman's terrific new book The Flight of the Intellectuals
TERRORISTS KILL MUSLIMS AGAINST TERRORISM: Two Sunni Arab imams in Iraq were savagely murdered today after preaching against Al Qaeda in their mosques.
MAOIST REBELS destroy a bus in India with a roadside bomb and kill dozens, including civilians and police officers. It's hard to believe communist insurgency is back so many years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, but at least it doesn't have much of a cheering section this time.
Posted by Michael J. Totten at May 17, 2010 9:42 PM
Comments
Very glad that you are filling in at Instapundit.Am also glad that you are keeping yourself out and visible.
Keep writing, think, and reporting.
Posted by: Larry LaBeck at May 17, 2010 9:57 pm
Keep writing, think, and reporting.
Michael, I have just finished reading Claire Berlinski's article and am disgusted beyond words. But not surprised.
It's not mere indifference, but a calculated indifference, that causes leftist intellectuals to fidget in their seats and change the subject when these things come up. It's not an either/or question of deliberate suppression versus apathy; it's something much more insidious precisely because it is a purposeful neglect.
Posted by: Asher Abrams at May 17, 2010 10:33 pm
It's not mere indifference, but a calculated indifference, that causes leftist intellectuals to fidget in their seats and change the subject when these things come up. It's not an either/or question of deliberate suppression versus apathy; it's something much more insidious precisely because it is a purposeful neglect.
Michael this is totally off-topic, but I met Bashar Assad's boy friend, George Galloway, a few days ago. What a despicable man! I made him take a picture with me, while I held up a copy of Barry Rubin's book, the Truth About Syria. I found that a bit comical, but its probably just me who finds it funny.
Posted by: Ali at May 18, 2010 1:37 am
[...] the rest here: Michael J. Totten Share and [...]
Posted by: Michael J. Totten | arablives at May 18, 2010 2:03 am
Re Iran and others...
George W. Bush was right. No negotiations or accomodations with dictators! Instead work hard at overthrowing them, overtly or covertly.
Posted by: Joe at May 18, 2010 6:34 am
George W. Bush was right. No negotiations or accomodations with dictators! Instead work hard at overthrowing them, overtly or covertly.
Ali: its probably just me who finds it funny
You have company ;)
Posted by: Li'l Mamzer at May 18, 2010 7:51 am
You have company ;)
Michael,
Ron Radosh has an article in response to Claire Berlinski's that I bears reading, and perhaps a link as well.
Best.
Posted by: James at May 18, 2010 12:20 pm
Ron Radosh has an article in response to Claire Berlinski's that I bears reading, and perhaps a link as well.
Best.
James,
You're the third person who has alerted me to the piece by Radosh. Just posted a link at Instapundit.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at May 18, 2010 12:24 pm
You're the third person who has alerted me to the piece by Radosh. Just posted a link at Instapundit.
Michael, I saw your note re Hitchens' book at Insty's. Do you by any chance appear in it, thanks to your thug/taxi incident in Beirut?
And, as a 1970s high-school kid whose life was changed for the better by Heller's Catch-22, I gotta admit Hitch's title makes me cringe a little. Does the book justify it?
Posted by: Gene at May 18, 2010 1:16 pm
And, as a 1970s high-school kid whose life was changed for the better by Heller's Catch-22, I gotta admit Hitch's title makes me cringe a little. Does the book justify it?
Gene,
Yes, I'm in Hitch's memoir. I didn't expect to read about the Beirut incident, but it's in there, toward the end.
As to the title, I haven't read Heller's book since I was a teenager, and it didn't have quite as much of an effect on me as it did on you. It hadn't even occured to me that Hitch's title would be cringe-worthy.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at May 18, 2010 1:52 pm
Yes, I'm in Hitch's memoir. I didn't expect to read about the Beirut incident, but it's in there, toward the end.
As to the title, I haven't read Heller's book since I was a teenager, and it didn't have quite as much of an effect on me as it did on you. It hadn't even occured to me that Hitch's title would be cringe-worthy.
Is the Instapundit site crashing anyone else's browser? I couldn't keep it running at work, and I'me having the same constant crashing now that I'm home.
Posted by: Nate at May 18, 2010 3:15 pm
From what I had gathered, the "Maobadis" have been rattling around the north of the Indian subcontinent for quite some time.
Kanchan Gupta mentions them frequently:
http://kanchangupta.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Squires at May 18, 2010 3:15 pm
Kanchan Gupta mentions them frequently:
http://kanchangupta.blogspot.com/
http://defensetech.org/2010/05/18/new-frontline-documentary-the-wounded-platoon/#idc-container
I can only wonder if this will be another flight of intellectualism. Can't tell yet but some comments by vets don't bode well, though war certainly can have a profound effect. Just wondering what the "message" is.
Posted by: Maxtrue at May 18, 2010 4:17 pm
I can only wonder if this will be another flight of intellectualism. Can't tell yet but some comments by vets don't bode well, though war certainly can have a profound effect. Just wondering what the "message" is.
I can only wonder if this will be another flight of intellectualism.
Maxtrue, how many times I gotta tell you? It isn't "flight or intellectualism"! It's Socialist Utopia v2.0!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOuJyH5_Cvk
See? Just like when they were college students themselves!
Actually, I'm starting to like that "flight" terminology, now that I plug it in to the fight-or-flight human response to fear. I was thinking they were just having a problem understanding what was really going on, and preferred not to try to deal with it. But now that I'm thinking they are actually AFRAID then it makes much more sense.
Can't tell yet but some comments by vets don't bode well, though war certainly can have a profound effect. Just wondering what the "message" is.
I don't think there's any "message". The morale and character of every unit is different. Some units start with just a few fuckups and misfits and end up with a lot of fuckups and misfits due to poor leadership, lack of unit cohesion, so on and so forth. This unit your link was talking about was obviously one of those. I knew a guy when I was in the Marines who assaulted 3 cops with a pool cue (and beat the hell out of them) while we were at MWTC Bridgeport. The powers that be saved his ass from prosecution for that but he was OTH discharge soon as we got back to Pendleton. Same guy was trying to rob some drug dealers in Oceanside a couple weeks after he was discharged and ended up dead on the train tracks. There ARE people like that in the military. It doesn't become an epidemic unless they start adversely influencing other people in their unit. In a good unit with good leadership, that doesn't happen.
Posted by: Craig at May 18, 2010 5:22 pm
Maxtrue, how many times I gotta tell you? It isn't "flight or intellectualism"! It's Socialist Utopia v2.0!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOuJyH5_Cvk
See? Just like when they were college students themselves!
Actually, I'm starting to like that "flight" terminology, now that I plug it in to the fight-or-flight human response to fear. I was thinking they were just having a problem understanding what was really going on, and preferred not to try to deal with it. But now that I'm thinking they are actually AFRAID then it makes much more sense.
Can't tell yet but some comments by vets don't bode well, though war certainly can have a profound effect. Just wondering what the "message" is.
I don't think there's any "message". The morale and character of every unit is different. Some units start with just a few fuckups and misfits and end up with a lot of fuckups and misfits due to poor leadership, lack of unit cohesion, so on and so forth. This unit your link was talking about was obviously one of those. I knew a guy when I was in the Marines who assaulted 3 cops with a pool cue (and beat the hell out of them) while we were at MWTC Bridgeport. The powers that be saved his ass from prosecution for that but he was OTH discharge soon as we got back to Pendleton. Same guy was trying to rob some drug dealers in Oceanside a couple weeks after he was discharged and ended up dead on the train tracks. There ARE people like that in the military. It doesn't become an epidemic unless they start adversely influencing other people in their unit. In a good unit with good leadership, that doesn't happen.
Craig, don't be obtuse. You know exactly what I meant. Right-leaning thinkers have published some doozies, so maybe my Flight of Intellectualism has some merit...lol. "Flight of some Left leaning Intellectuals". Is that better? Having read Michael's interview, I think I get the point and the examples I have linked all fall under Berman's general classification....
Frontline? Did you read the comment thread over at Defense Tech? What makes me think there will be a subtle message about war. As you said, it depends on the unit. Maybe I'm wrong, but I would not be surprised that "facts" are spun in an exaggerated way and somehow indict the purpose behind the conflict. Here is something you might find interesting
http://freerangeinternational.com/blog/?p=3078
...and the NYT would be a paper I would file under "Flight of Left-leaning Intellectuals".
Now is that better?
Hell, Paul won, you should be thrilled. On the other hand, Clinton is going to SK to hold their hand when the report airs Thursday. I see Jones and Panetta are off to Pakistan. Maybe they want to investigate the rumors.......
Posted by: Maxtrue at May 18, 2010 5:49 pm
Frontline? Did you read the comment thread over at Defense Tech? What makes me think there will be a subtle message about war. As you said, it depends on the unit. Maybe I'm wrong, but I would not be surprised that "facts" are spun in an exaggerated way and somehow indict the purpose behind the conflict. Here is something you might find interesting
http://freerangeinternational.com/blog/?p=3078
...and the NYT would be a paper I would file under "Flight of Left-leaning Intellectuals".
Now is that better?
Hell, Paul won, you should be thrilled. On the other hand, Clinton is going to SK to hold their hand when the report airs Thursday. I see Jones and Panetta are off to Pakistan. Maybe they want to investigate the rumors.......
Maxtrue,
I don't see Paul's victory as a positive thing...for all the criticism people on this site throw at Obama, Ron/Rand Paul would be 10 times worse.
Posted by: C.H. at May 18, 2010 7:07 pm
I don't see Paul's victory as a positive thing...for all the criticism people on this site throw at Obama, Ron/Rand Paul would be 10 times worse.
C.H.,
I don't either. I was just giving Craig a hard time...
What allies would we have left?
Posted by: Maxtrue at May 18, 2010 7:22 pm
I don't either. I was just giving Craig a hard time...
What allies would we have left?
Max,
Right-leaning thinkers have published some doozies, so maybe my Flight of Intellectualism has some merit...lol.
Well, yeah... even Reagan had some serious qualms about derailing the Cold War on what he saw as side-issues. The main difference between the right and the left when it comes to terrorism is:
-Some on the right think we have more important things to be doing
-Some on the left think terrorism is America's fault and so we should mend our evil ways and hope that the terrorists will forgive us
The end result may be the same but I find one to be much more objectionable than the other. That's the main reason I'm not going to become an anti-war activist even though I think the US should get out of Afghanistan. There's no way in hell I'm going to ally with leftists on that or on anything else.
What makes me think there will be a subtle message about war.
I don't think it is subtle, nor do I think it is surprising.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I would not be surprised that "facts" are spun in an exaggerated way and somehow indict the purpose behind the conflict.
I think the agenda is to show that the war is bad for American troops, and causes them permanent harm. It's a way to undermine the war effort without being open about it, since the war in Afghanistan was supposedly the one the leftists thought was the good and righteous war. As opposed to Iraq.
By the way, I'm with CH in not being all that enthused about Rand Paul. If he's anything like his father, he doesn't believe his libertarian isolationism needs to be defended. I think that's a mistake. And since we always like to talk about Thomas Jefferson, I'm pretty sure Thomas Jefferson would think it was a mistake too! After all, Jefferson as President took America into it's first foreign war to protect Americans from North African piracy :)
Posted by: Craig at May 18, 2010 11:31 pm
Right-leaning thinkers have published some doozies, so maybe my Flight of Intellectualism has some merit...lol.
Well, yeah... even Reagan had some serious qualms about derailing the Cold War on what he saw as side-issues. The main difference between the right and the left when it comes to terrorism is:
-Some on the right think we have more important things to be doing
-Some on the left think terrorism is America's fault and so we should mend our evil ways and hope that the terrorists will forgive us
The end result may be the same but I find one to be much more objectionable than the other. That's the main reason I'm not going to become an anti-war activist even though I think the US should get out of Afghanistan. There's no way in hell I'm going to ally with leftists on that or on anything else.
What makes me think there will be a subtle message about war.
I don't think it is subtle, nor do I think it is surprising.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I would not be surprised that "facts" are spun in an exaggerated way and somehow indict the purpose behind the conflict.
I think the agenda is to show that the war is bad for American troops, and causes them permanent harm. It's a way to undermine the war effort without being open about it, since the war in Afghanistan was supposedly the one the leftists thought was the good and righteous war. As opposed to Iraq.
By the way, I'm with CH in not being all that enthused about Rand Paul. If he's anything like his father, he doesn't believe his libertarian isolationism needs to be defended. I think that's a mistake. And since we always like to talk about Thomas Jefferson, I'm pretty sure Thomas Jefferson would think it was a mistake too! After all, Jefferson as President took America into it's first foreign war to protect Americans from North African piracy :)
Craig,
My fear is that Rand Paul, his father, and their supporters like Alex Jones will hijack the Republican party...leaving two choices to run this country: The far-left, and the isolationist, anti-government far-right. The wingnuts and the moonbats are the only ones getting the stage these days.
Conservatives have become so deranged by Obama (who I would proudly vote for over either of the Pauls)
that they are letting the crazies loose (watch Jones' "the Obama Deception" on youtube -- its ridiculous)
Posted by: C.H. at May 19, 2010 12:17 am
My fear is that Rand Paul, his father, and their supporters like Alex Jones will hijack the Republican party...leaving two choices to run this country: The far-left, and the isolationist, anti-government far-right. The wingnuts and the moonbats are the only ones getting the stage these days.
Conservatives have become so deranged by Obama (who I would proudly vote for over either of the Pauls)
that they are letting the crazies loose (watch Jones' "the Obama Deception" on youtube -- its ridiculous)
Uh CH, what is your issue with the Pauls? You like wasteful big government and the Fed-sponsored kleptocracy?
Posted by: Joe at May 19, 2010 5:50 am
Craig, I agree with your comments and find nothing in my ordinal statement that contradicts it besides the generalized term I used "Flight of Intellectualism". I'm not on board with the characterization of all Right-leaning blather as Ron Paul would leave the world to dogs.....
You said exactly my suspicion about the PBS spin and NO, I would not be surprised.
C.H. - yes a real problem if that does happen. We're screwed.
Joe, maybe you might want to read some Paulian foreign policy.
Posted by: Maxtrue at May 19, 2010 6:03 am
You said exactly my suspicion about the PBS spin and NO, I would not be surprised.
C.H. - yes a real problem if that does happen. We're screwed.
Joe, maybe you might want to read some Paulian foreign policy.
original...lol...coffee time.
Posted by: Maxtrue at May 19, 2010 6:06 am
"Uh CH, what is your issue with the Pauls?"
Because isolationism is not what we need right now. In today's increasingly globalized world, Ron Paul's views are more irrelevant than ever.
Posted by: C.H. at May 19, 2010 9:31 am
Because isolationism is not what we need right now. In today's increasingly globalized world, Ron Paul's views are more irrelevant than ever.
C.H., Not everyone loves "the globalized world". It got us terrorism, high oil prices, sovereign wealth funds, the collapse of US manufacturing, and very low long-term interest rates (due to emerging markets buying of US treasuries) which created the housing bubble and crash. We need a rethink instead of enriching all the world's dictators while everyone hates us. Globalization is so last decade. This is the recession that resets all counters to zero. The world will be vertical again, not flat per Tom Friedman.
Posted by: Joe at May 19, 2010 9:45 am
Count me as somebody who is against globalization also, CH :)
Globalization empowers corporations, and by extension it empowers some governments. That's all it is good for, in my opinion. And since that's not a worthy goal I'm opposed to it. Most especially because it has hurt the American workforce so much.
Posted by: Craig at May 19, 2010 10:43 am
Globalization empowers corporations, and by extension it empowers some governments. That's all it is good for, in my opinion. And since that's not a worthy goal I'm opposed to it. Most especially because it has hurt the American workforce so much.
"We need a rethink instead of enriching all the world's dictators while everyone hates us."
Everyone does not hate us...contrary to popular belief, President Bush's foreign policy towards India and sub-Saharan Africa got us strong economic partnerships and even stronger allies. India, having been there last year, is one of the most pro-American places I have ever seen...our alliance with this emerging, democratic power will ensure that America continues to lead in the coming decades...all the while it will lift millions of people out the slums and poverty. Also, Bush's Africa policy speaks for itself. I think the former President's approval rating was somewhere around 80 percent in Tanzania when he left office. He provided more aid to Africa than any president in US history...he realized that Africa has huge potential to shape our ever-changing world, and its not just a forgotten land of lost hope.
Sure, globalization has brought us problems like high oil prices and terrorism, but isolationism has brought plenty of its own disasters. Look what happened to the Iraqis in 1991...after America's "interests were served", hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered and no one in the US government gave a damn. Just a few years later, the world turned its back on Rwanda as a million people were hacked to death...because it "wasn't our problem". I could go on to mention the Holocaust, Eastern Congo, and the myriad of other tragedies that have befallen us because of the inability of so many people to see everyone in the world as fellow humans...not just "fellow Americans" or "foreigners".
Posted by: C.H. at May 19, 2010 11:49 am
Everyone does not hate us...contrary to popular belief, President Bush's foreign policy towards India and sub-Saharan Africa got us strong economic partnerships and even stronger allies. India, having been there last year, is one of the most pro-American places I have ever seen...our alliance with this emerging, democratic power will ensure that America continues to lead in the coming decades...all the while it will lift millions of people out the slums and poverty. Also, Bush's Africa policy speaks for itself. I think the former President's approval rating was somewhere around 80 percent in Tanzania when he left office. He provided more aid to Africa than any president in US history...he realized that Africa has huge potential to shape our ever-changing world, and its not just a forgotten land of lost hope.
Sure, globalization has brought us problems like high oil prices and terrorism, but isolationism has brought plenty of its own disasters. Look what happened to the Iraqis in 1991...after America's "interests were served", hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered and no one in the US government gave a damn. Just a few years later, the world turned its back on Rwanda as a million people were hacked to death...because it "wasn't our problem". I could go on to mention the Holocaust, Eastern Congo, and the myriad of other tragedies that have befallen us because of the inability of so many people to see everyone in the world as fellow humans...not just "fellow Americans" or "foreigners".
Joe,
It got us terrorism, high oil prices, sovereign wealth funds, the collapse of US manufacturing, and very low long-term interest rates...
It also cost us the service sector! Remember in the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s when all the talk was that the US was moving to a service-based economy rather than a goods-based economy? That was supposed to make us feel better about the way so many American companies were having their manufacturing done overseas, so what does it mean now that we've lost a big part of that service-providing as well? Businesses that are too small to capitalize on cheap foreign labor are about all we've got left.
Posted by: Craig at May 19, 2010 11:53 am
It got us terrorism, high oil prices, sovereign wealth funds, the collapse of US manufacturing, and very low long-term interest rates...
It also cost us the service sector! Remember in the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s when all the talk was that the US was moving to a service-based economy rather than a goods-based economy? That was supposed to make us feel better about the way so many American companies were having their manufacturing done overseas, so what does it mean now that we've lost a big part of that service-providing as well? Businesses that are too small to capitalize on cheap foreign labor are about all we've got left.
CH,
Sure, globalization has brought us problems like high oil prices and terrorism, but isolationism has brought plenty of its own disasters.
Those aren't the only two choices :)
I happen to like (aggressive) isolationism. You don't, and that's fine. It doesn't mean you have to support the New World Order(tm) instead :p
Most of the rest of what you were talking about was "world police" stuff, not globalization. But the two are related. I corporations are to engage in global commerce (rather than national commerce) then they need some sort of global security force that makes it safe for them to do business in some of the poorest and most under-privileged parts of the world (because that is where the cheapest labor is to be had). It's also necessary that corporations have the ability to neutralize any national government that won't play ball.
Sorry, CH, but that's not what I joined the marines to do, way back in the day. I don't think it's the reason Americans join the military today. I think Americans join the US military to serve their country, not to serve corporate interests.
...not just "fellow Americans" or "foreigners".
By what right do Americans get to intervene is foreign countries just to help some foreigners, and kill other foreigners? It's the role of the UN to make such decisions. All the US gets to do is decide whether to commit to the UN mission or not.
Posted by: Craig at May 19, 2010 12:10 pm
Sure, globalization has brought us problems like high oil prices and terrorism, but isolationism has brought plenty of its own disasters.
Those aren't the only two choices :)
I happen to like (aggressive) isolationism. You don't, and that's fine. It doesn't mean you have to support the New World Order(tm) instead :p
Most of the rest of what you were talking about was "world police" stuff, not globalization. But the two are related. I corporations are to engage in global commerce (rather than national commerce) then they need some sort of global security force that makes it safe for them to do business in some of the poorest and most under-privileged parts of the world (because that is where the cheapest labor is to be had). It's also necessary that corporations have the ability to neutralize any national government that won't play ball.
Sorry, CH, but that's not what I joined the marines to do, way back in the day. I don't think it's the reason Americans join the military today. I think Americans join the US military to serve their country, not to serve corporate interests.
...not just "fellow Americans" or "foreigners".
By what right do Americans get to intervene is foreign countries just to help some foreigners, and kill other foreigners? It's the role of the UN to make such decisions. All the US gets to do is decide whether to commit to the UN mission or not.
"It doesn't mean you have to support the New World Order(tm) instead"
I don't want a "New World Order", but I do recognize that the world is changing in many ways. I see it as a good thing, although others don't. A "NWO" that scares me is when the isolationists/tea party types talk about "taking back our government" and revolting against "the establishment". They want to go back to an America that never even existed, where there is very little government. At first, I supported and defended the tea party...but now that people like the Pauls and JD Hayworth have stepped in it seems as if the air has been let loose from the balloon at an uncontrollable pace.
"It's the role of the UN to make such decisions."
I'm sure you will agree with me when I say that this organization is corrupt, broken, and maybe even genocidal. It lost any shred of credibility when it placed the "Islamic Republic" on the "women's rights council" and essentially bitch-slapped anyone who has ever cared for Iranian human rights. I don't want the US to police the world, but I think the US should use its influence to dramatically reshape the UN...the whole thing needs to be restructured from the bottom up. In theory, the UN could be an effective organization.
"It's also necessary that corporations have the ability to neutralize any national government that won't play ball."
Corporations should not have the right to make such decisions, I agree.
"By what right do Americans get to intervene is foreign countries just to help some foreigners, and kill other foreigners?"
Well, in the case of the 1991 genocide in Iraq, we were obligated to help because we promised the Iraqi people our help...they listened, and did everything they could to overthrow Saddam, including an uprising in 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces. They expected to have the coalition's support and it never came...just think of all the bloodshed that could have been spared, in both 1991 and 2003, if we had kept our promise.
Posted by: C.H. at May 19, 2010 12:32 pm
I don't want a "New World Order", but I do recognize that the world is changing in many ways. I see it as a good thing, although others don't. A "NWO" that scares me is when the isolationists/tea party types talk about "taking back our government" and revolting against "the establishment". They want to go back to an America that never even existed, where there is very little government. At first, I supported and defended the tea party...but now that people like the Pauls and JD Hayworth have stepped in it seems as if the air has been let loose from the balloon at an uncontrollable pace.
"It's the role of the UN to make such decisions."
I'm sure you will agree with me when I say that this organization is corrupt, broken, and maybe even genocidal. It lost any shred of credibility when it placed the "Islamic Republic" on the "women's rights council" and essentially bitch-slapped anyone who has ever cared for Iranian human rights. I don't want the US to police the world, but I think the US should use its influence to dramatically reshape the UN...the whole thing needs to be restructured from the bottom up. In theory, the UN could be an effective organization.
"It's also necessary that corporations have the ability to neutralize any national government that won't play ball."
Corporations should not have the right to make such decisions, I agree.
"By what right do Americans get to intervene is foreign countries just to help some foreigners, and kill other foreigners?"
Well, in the case of the 1991 genocide in Iraq, we were obligated to help because we promised the Iraqi people our help...they listened, and did everything they could to overthrow Saddam, including an uprising in 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces. They expected to have the coalition's support and it never came...just think of all the bloodshed that could have been spared, in both 1991 and 2003, if we had kept our promise.
Craig there are solutions that don't require isolation. Would you prevent cheaper goods from being imported? Cheaper energy, lower transport cost and indigenous customization ought to make our manufacturing healthy. Our Founders spoke of protecting the approached to our markets and a certain amount of globalization has spread more moderation than radicalism around the world.
The dissolving of the binary cold war has led to a multi-polar world uncapping latent nationalism and extremism, far more than globalization. The future security of the world rests on nations like India and others to become prosperous and join in the defense of Liberal Democracy. I don't want to fill the thread so I will leave it as that as far as markets.
As far as the Pauls, Republican anti-war was against FDR entering the war. Republican isolationists would leave the world to itself and deal with the consequences later.
A revolution in manufacturing and cheaper energy will eventually revive our manufacturing base as new smaller automated factories will allow decentralized and custom production.
American workers should be able to compete on the world market. Instead we will rent rides on Russian space ships. In a reformed future, with energy and markets secure here, there will be ample space for manufacturing to grow back.
And we do prefer high tech jobs, don't we?
In any case, the central danger before us is WMD. I would argue that isolation makes this more dangerous.
1. WMD materials exist in many adversarial labs and will increase with little indexing of forsenic identification.
2. Proxies exists in an emerging network of criminals, radicals and opportunists to the point it would hard to identify the orginal "sender". I rather doubt we should retreat from this "silent" alliance against us. Even now Iran claims the emerging nations reject the old powers...lol and that includes China.
3. Deliver systems are becoming cheap.
You can't protect against this defensively. You can only cut the head off the snake. Tails grow back. Now you can't very well get to the heads, rip up the central branches of the network in isolation. It will take a more inspiring international call than "we're going home". If you think we will not be drawn into conflict when the adversaries see our retreat, I have a bridge to sell you. They are like chicks when they smell blood. I rather doubt any President will order severe retaliation without absolute proof and even then, killing a lot of innocent Iranians would be a catastrophe.
I just don't see how pulling back is an option.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10127322.stm it should never get to the point we don't care about this.
Sorry for the scatter....work was raging....
Posted by: Maxtrue at May 19, 2010 12:38 pm
The dissolving of the binary cold war has led to a multi-polar world uncapping latent nationalism and extremism, far more than globalization. The future security of the world rests on nations like India and others to become prosperous and join in the defense of Liberal Democracy. I don't want to fill the thread so I will leave it as that as far as markets.
As far as the Pauls, Republican anti-war was against FDR entering the war. Republican isolationists would leave the world to itself and deal with the consequences later.
A revolution in manufacturing and cheaper energy will eventually revive our manufacturing base as new smaller automated factories will allow decentralized and custom production.
American workers should be able to compete on the world market. Instead we will rent rides on Russian space ships. In a reformed future, with energy and markets secure here, there will be ample space for manufacturing to grow back.
And we do prefer high tech jobs, don't we?
In any case, the central danger before us is WMD. I would argue that isolation makes this more dangerous.
1. WMD materials exist in many adversarial labs and will increase with little indexing of forsenic identification.
2. Proxies exists in an emerging network of criminals, radicals and opportunists to the point it would hard to identify the orginal "sender". I rather doubt we should retreat from this "silent" alliance against us. Even now Iran claims the emerging nations reject the old powers...lol and that includes China.
3. Deliver systems are becoming cheap.
You can't protect against this defensively. You can only cut the head off the snake. Tails grow back. Now you can't very well get to the heads, rip up the central branches of the network in isolation. It will take a more inspiring international call than "we're going home". If you think we will not be drawn into conflict when the adversaries see our retreat, I have a bridge to sell you. They are like chicks when they smell blood. I rather doubt any President will order severe retaliation without absolute proof and even then, killing a lot of innocent Iranians would be a catastrophe.
I just don't see how pulling back is an option.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10127322.stm it should never get to the point we don't care about this.
Sorry for the scatter....work was raging....
CH,
I don't want a "New World Order", but I do recognize that the world is changing in many ways. I see it as a good thing, although others don't.
Of course the world is changing in many ways. Some good, some bad. Globalization is the worst in my opinion, because by design it rewards the elites in government and business, and screws everyone else.
A "NWO" that scares me is when the isolationists/tea party types talk about "taking back our government" and revolting against "the establishment".
That's NOT a New World Order! It's a New American Order :)
BTW I'm not a fan of the Tea Party but if that's all they wanted to do, I would be. Those are both worthy goals.
They want to go back to an America that never even existed, where there is very little government.
Of course, it did exist. That's the US as defined by our founders. Things started going badly wrong about the time the Civil War came along. But, as you say, the world is changing. What worked for America when it was small and weak regional power will not work for America as a superpower. However, there are a few areas where the US would be well served by getting back to basics. The federal government is out of control and almost entirely unresponsive. It fails to do the things it should be doing, while at the same time it advocates (or worse!) things that people don't want.
At first, I supported and defended the tea party...but now that people like the Pauls and JD Hayworth have stepped in it seems as if the air has been let loose from the balloon at an uncontrollable pace.
I haven't been paying much attention to them. If libertarians were capable of forming their own political party with their own platform and their own ideology, we'd have a 3 party system instead of a 2 party system. That's not possible in my opinion, so like it or not the future of libertarians is with republicans. If they can give Republicans a little badly needed shock-therapy in the short term, though, then I view that as a good thing.
I'm sure you will agree with me when I say that this organization is corrupt, broken, and maybe even genocidal.
I do agree with you, yes. Perhaps there should be a new international diplomatic body that included only democratic states. It seems like any organization where the majority of the membership is either corrupt or tyrannical is bound to have some issues with corruption and support for tyranny.
I don't have a lot of faith in the world's democracies either, though.
I agree with you about the US and Iraq in the early 1990s. The US had a moral obligation to either finish the job once we went to war against Saddam, or to help Iraqis finish the job.
Posted by: Craig at May 19, 2010 1:03 pm
I don't want a "New World Order", but I do recognize that the world is changing in many ways. I see it as a good thing, although others don't.
Of course the world is changing in many ways. Some good, some bad. Globalization is the worst in my opinion, because by design it rewards the elites in government and business, and screws everyone else.
A "NWO" that scares me is when the isolationists/tea party types talk about "taking back our government" and revolting against "the establishment".
That's NOT a New World Order! It's a New American Order :)
BTW I'm not a fan of the Tea Party but if that's all they wanted to do, I would be. Those are both worthy goals.
They want to go back to an America that never even existed, where there is very little government.
Of course, it did exist. That's the US as defined by our founders. Things started going badly wrong about the time the Civil War came along. But, as you say, the world is changing. What worked for America when it was small and weak regional power will not work for America as a superpower. However, there are a few areas where the US would be well served by getting back to basics. The federal government is out of control and almost entirely unresponsive. It fails to do the things it should be doing, while at the same time it advocates (or worse!) things that people don't want.
At first, I supported and defended the tea party...but now that people like the Pauls and JD Hayworth have stepped in it seems as if the air has been let loose from the balloon at an uncontrollable pace.
I haven't been paying much attention to them. If libertarians were capable of forming their own political party with their own platform and their own ideology, we'd have a 3 party system instead of a 2 party system. That's not possible in my opinion, so like it or not the future of libertarians is with republicans. If they can give Republicans a little badly needed shock-therapy in the short term, though, then I view that as a good thing.
I'm sure you will agree with me when I say that this organization is corrupt, broken, and maybe even genocidal.
I do agree with you, yes. Perhaps there should be a new international diplomatic body that included only democratic states. It seems like any organization where the majority of the membership is either corrupt or tyrannical is bound to have some issues with corruption and support for tyranny.
I don't have a lot of faith in the world's democracies either, though.
I agree with you about the US and Iraq in the early 1990s. The US had a moral obligation to either finish the job once we went to war against Saddam, or to help Iraqis finish the job.
Craig there are solutions that don't require isolation. Would you prevent cheaper goods from being imported...
Maxtrue, when I speak of isolationism I'm talking about politics and military involvement. I'm very much pro-Free Trade. I'm even pro-Immigration :)
Posted by: Craig at May 19, 2010 1:06 pm
Maxtrue, when I speak of isolationism I'm talking about politics and military involvement. I'm very much pro-Free Trade. I'm even pro-Immigration :)
"Perhaps there should be a new international diplomatic body that included only democratic states"
I was about to say something similar. I think that the UN should be a place where the PEOPLE of the world have their concerns addressed, not the leaders of despotic regimes. Ahmadinefraud's speech last month should have ended with him being handcuffed and placed into the back of an NYPD squad car. If the UK can issue arrest warrants for Israeli ministers, why can't the US arrest Iranian officials?
I am more than tired of hearing about "diplomacy" with Iran...the government in charge there does not represent the country at all, therefore, people like Brazil's Lula, who think they are helping another "emerging power" by embracing Ahmadinejad, are really just empowering a bloody theocracy that is choking Iran's real potential.
Posted by: C.H. at May 19, 2010 1:22 pm
I was about to say something similar. I think that the UN should be a place where the PEOPLE of the world have their concerns addressed, not the leaders of despotic regimes. Ahmadinefraud's speech last month should have ended with him being handcuffed and placed into the back of an NYPD squad car. If the UK can issue arrest warrants for Israeli ministers, why can't the US arrest Iranian officials?
I am more than tired of hearing about "diplomacy" with Iran...the government in charge there does not represent the country at all, therefore, people like Brazil's Lula, who think they are helping another "emerging power" by embracing Ahmadinejad, are really just empowering a bloody theocracy that is choking Iran's real potential.
"Of course the world is changing in many ways. Some good, some bad. Globalization is the worst in my opinion, because by design it rewards the elites in government and business, and screws everyone else."
I think you and I have two different views on what globalization is and does. I see it as a globally intertwined economy that rewards the hard-working people in the developing world, fosters democracy, and serves the interests of the global community. America's growing partnership with India and Africa is proof of that.
America can maintain its status as a powerful, influential and leading nation this way...if we go the way of Ron Paul, we will only get left behind.
Posted by: C.H. at May 19, 2010 1:27 pm
I think you and I have two different views on what globalization is and does. I see it as a globally intertwined economy that rewards the hard-working people in the developing world, fosters democracy, and serves the interests of the global community. America's growing partnership with India and Africa is proof of that.
America can maintain its status as a powerful, influential and leading nation this way...if we go the way of Ron Paul, we will only get left behind.
I think you and I have two different views on what globalization is and does. I see it as a globally intertwined economy that rewards the hard-working people in the developing world...
Only if they live in India or China, it seems. And those rewards for India and China are at the expense of American workers. There's absolutely no reason why AMERICAN companies should be employing Chinese and Indian nationals to do jobs that should be done by Americans. It is up to Chinese and Indian companies to employ their own citizens.
...fosters democracy
Like in China? :o
US policy towards China would be quite different if our economy wasn't so dependent on theirs. And the worst part of it is that the Chinese are perfectly capable of succeeding on their own WITHOUT the US exporting American jobs to Chinese workers. So is India, for that matter. They both have 4x our population. Whatever benefit they receive from doing work Americans should be doing is negligible in comparison to how much damage it does to the US economy.
...and serves the interests of the global community.
A lot of countries in the third world are worse off now than they were before the globalization trend started, CH. For example, I used to see products from all over the world went I went to a clothing store. Now all the tags say "Made in China". Same with electronics.
America can maintain its status as a powerful, influential and leading nation this way...if we go the way of Ron Paul, we will only get left behind.
It isn't globalization that made the US a super-power, so it seems illogical to claim that it will keep us a super-power. Especially when the evidence in front of our eyes seems to suggest that it is globalization that has led directly to our decline :)
In any case, my concern is not maintaining America's status as a powerful, influential and leading nation. My concern is maintaining American prosperity.
Posted by: Craig at May 19, 2010 2:01 pm
Only if they live in India or China, it seems. And those rewards for India and China are at the expense of American workers. There's absolutely no reason why AMERICAN companies should be employing Chinese and Indian nationals to do jobs that should be done by Americans. It is up to Chinese and Indian companies to employ their own citizens.
...fosters democracy
Like in China? :o
US policy towards China would be quite different if our economy wasn't so dependent on theirs. And the worst part of it is that the Chinese are perfectly capable of succeeding on their own WITHOUT the US exporting American jobs to Chinese workers. So is India, for that matter. They both have 4x our population. Whatever benefit they receive from doing work Americans should be doing is negligible in comparison to how much damage it does to the US economy.
...and serves the interests of the global community.
A lot of countries in the third world are worse off now than they were before the globalization trend started, CH. For example, I used to see products from all over the world went I went to a clothing store. Now all the tags say "Made in China". Same with electronics.
America can maintain its status as a powerful, influential and leading nation this way...if we go the way of Ron Paul, we will only get left behind.
It isn't globalization that made the US a super-power, so it seems illogical to claim that it will keep us a super-power. Especially when the evidence in front of our eyes seems to suggest that it is globalization that has led directly to our decline :)
In any case, my concern is not maintaining America's status as a powerful, influential and leading nation. My concern is maintaining American prosperity.
"A lot of countries in the third world are worse off now than they were before the globalization trend started, CH"
I don't think that's true at all. More people are living in societies with basic democratic rights than at anytime in history. South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, which have traditionally made up the bulk of the world's poor, are experiencing some of the fastest rates of growth in the world. Tall buildings are shooting up across cities like Nairobi, Dar es Salaam, Jakarta, Chennai, and even Kampala...all of these were once written off as poverty-stricken hellholes. Now, it looks like the citizens of these cities and others will have their chance to have a say on the world stage in the coming decades.
"In any case, my concern is not maintaining America's status as a powerful, influential and leading nation. My concern is maintaining American prosperity."
America benefits when the rest of the world is well-off, stable, and prosperous. Look back in history at "the roaring 20's", when Americans decided to take up isolationism and live lavish lifestyles. It was good for a while, but during that time the world was spiraling out of control...Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini came to power, setting the stage for WWII, the Holocaust, and the gulags. Imperial Japan began conquering most of East Asia.
"Like in China? :o"
China has a LONG way to go, but I would point to rising democracies like India (which has modeled itself after America in many ways), Kenya, Indonesia, Nigeria, and others. Look at this:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10991
"In the past two decades, a number of economies have followed the path of economic and trade reform leading to political reform. South Korea and Taiwan as recently as the 1980s were governed by authoritarian regimes that did not permit much open dissent. Today, after years of expanding trade and rising incomes, both are multiparty democracies with full political and civil liberties. Other countries that have most aggressively followed those twin tracks of reform include Chile, Ghana, Hungary, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Portugal, and Tanzania.
In other words, governments that grant their citizens a large measure of freedom to engage in international commerce find it increasingly difficult to deprive them of political and civil liberties, while governments that "protect" their citizens behind tariff walls and other barriers to international commerce find it much easier to deny those same liberties. Of course, the correlation between economic openness and political freedom across countries is not perfect, but the broad trends are undeniable."
Posted by: C.H. at May 19, 2010 3:14 pm
I don't think that's true at all. More people are living in societies with basic democratic rights than at anytime in history. South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, which have traditionally made up the bulk of the world's poor, are experiencing some of the fastest rates of growth in the world. Tall buildings are shooting up across cities like Nairobi, Dar es Salaam, Jakarta, Chennai, and even Kampala...all of these were once written off as poverty-stricken hellholes. Now, it looks like the citizens of these cities and others will have their chance to have a say on the world stage in the coming decades.
"In any case, my concern is not maintaining America's status as a powerful, influential and leading nation. My concern is maintaining American prosperity."
America benefits when the rest of the world is well-off, stable, and prosperous. Look back in history at "the roaring 20's", when Americans decided to take up isolationism and live lavish lifestyles. It was good for a while, but during that time the world was spiraling out of control...Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini came to power, setting the stage for WWII, the Holocaust, and the gulags. Imperial Japan began conquering most of East Asia.
"Like in China? :o"
China has a LONG way to go, but I would point to rising democracies like India (which has modeled itself after America in many ways), Kenya, Indonesia, Nigeria, and others. Look at this:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10991
"In the past two decades, a number of economies have followed the path of economic and trade reform leading to political reform. South Korea and Taiwan as recently as the 1980s were governed by authoritarian regimes that did not permit much open dissent. Today, after years of expanding trade and rising incomes, both are multiparty democracies with full political and civil liberties. Other countries that have most aggressively followed those twin tracks of reform include Chile, Ghana, Hungary, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Portugal, and Tanzania.
In other words, governments that grant their citizens a large measure of freedom to engage in international commerce find it increasingly difficult to deprive them of political and civil liberties, while governments that "protect" their citizens behind tariff walls and other barriers to international commerce find it much easier to deny those same liberties. Of course, the correlation between economic openness and political freedom across countries is not perfect, but the broad trends are undeniable."
Americans should be making what others aren't, or aren't making as well as we might make with focused effort; nanotechnology comes to mind. Outsourcing phone support to Bangalore or Manila can free up R & D money.
Now...having my customer ID in an overseas databank doesn't worry me,whereas my medical records...As Scott McNealy of Sun says though, there is no privacy; get over it. THIS worries me. And keeps me vigilant.
Posted by: Paul S. at May 19, 2010 3:37 pm
Now...having my customer ID in an overseas databank doesn't worry me,whereas my medical records...As Scott McNealy of Sun says though, there is no privacy; get over it. THIS worries me. And keeps me vigilant.
Americans should be making what others aren't, or aren't making as well as we might make with focused effort; nanotechnology comes to mind. Outsourcing phone support to Bangalore or Manila can free up R & D money.
Paul, allow me to share with you the kind of "teaching moments" we had in my family. When I was 7 or 8 (which means early 1970s) my mom's dad was one of the top VPs at a fortune 100 company. I was fascinated by all the souvenirs from all over the world that my grandparents house was decorated with. Tiger skins (no shit) elephant tusks(seriously), all kinds of exotic artwork and etc. So one time in the car I asked my dad what grandpa did for a living. The conversation went something like this:
Dad: He's "Vice President of this facility is redundant" for XYZ, Craig. He's head honcho of you're fired. The guru of we're better off without you.(and so on... it was actually quite funny the way my dad told it, he's got a way with words)
Me: What does that mean, dad?
Dad: He tells people not to come to work anymore.
Me: That's not a good job!
Dad: He seems to like it.
Me: Grandpa is a bad man!
Dad: (silence)
Me: Waaaahhhahhahhhh waaahhehah wahahahhha
So anyway, that is still a US manufacturer. And it's a bigger company now than it was back then. The only part of it still in the US is the corporate headquarters, though. They used to have dozens if not hundreds of manufacturing facilities in the US. But over a period of time they opened new plants in other countries, and closed the ones stateside. That's many (seriously, many) thousands of jobs that the US lost and never recovered, from that one company alone. And yet, the company is more profitable than it ever was before.
Is that free trade? Is that good for America?
As far as making things that others can't or don't make... you mean like computers? :)
This is a repeating cycle. We invent things here. We turn our inventions into valuable commodity items. And then we export all the labor involved with producing and maintaining the product to places that can do that work cheaper. And eventually people in those other countries learn how to make that stuff without us involved in the process at all. You might argue that we can get by with an R&D based economy, but I don't think that's so. What about the 100+ million Americans who aren't competent and can never be made competent to work in research and development?
Posted by: Craig at May 19, 2010 4:24 pm
Paul, allow me to share with you the kind of "teaching moments" we had in my family. When I was 7 or 8 (which means early 1970s) my mom's dad was one of the top VPs at a fortune 100 company. I was fascinated by all the souvenirs from all over the world that my grandparents house was decorated with. Tiger skins (no shit) elephant tusks(seriously), all kinds of exotic artwork and etc. So one time in the car I asked my dad what grandpa did for a living. The conversation went something like this:
Dad: He's "Vice President of this facility is redundant" for XYZ, Craig. He's head honcho of you're fired. The guru of we're better off without you.(and so on... it was actually quite funny the way my dad told it, he's got a way with words)
Me: What does that mean, dad?
Dad: He tells people not to come to work anymore.
Me: That's not a good job!
Dad: He seems to like it.
Me: Grandpa is a bad man!
Dad: (silence)
Me: Waaaahhhahhahhhh waaahhehah wahahahhha
So anyway, that is still a US manufacturer. And it's a bigger company now than it was back then. The only part of it still in the US is the corporate headquarters, though. They used to have dozens if not hundreds of manufacturing facilities in the US. But over a period of time they opened new plants in other countries, and closed the ones stateside. That's many (seriously, many) thousands of jobs that the US lost and never recovered, from that one company alone. And yet, the company is more profitable than it ever was before.
Is that free trade? Is that good for America?
As far as making things that others can't or don't make... you mean like computers? :)
This is a repeating cycle. We invent things here. We turn our inventions into valuable commodity items. And then we export all the labor involved with producing and maintaining the product to places that can do that work cheaper. And eventually people in those other countries learn how to make that stuff without us involved in the process at all. You might argue that we can get by with an R&D based economy, but I don't think that's so. What about the 100+ million Americans who aren't competent and can never be made competent to work in research and development?
As a Tea Party supporter, I'll add that less government obviously isn't no government; it creates a possibility (I'm a terminal pessimist) for lean, focused, accountable government, accountable to those who fund every dollar it doesn't get from China, for example. But, if anyone has proof that no-competition big government is the engine of a healthy economy, I'll examine it.
Posted by: Paul S. at May 19, 2010 4:33 pm
"making things that others can't or don't make"
Like military tech that is second to none---currently, of course; that's too important a treadmill (or should be) to ever get off of.
Craig, you convince Americans to pay three times as much for shirts, socks and underwear and we'll bring it all back home.
Posted by: Paul S. at May 19, 2010 4:40 pm
Like military tech that is second to none---currently, of course; that's too important a treadmill (or should be) to ever get off of.
Craig, you convince Americans to pay three times as much for shirts, socks and underwear and we'll bring it all back home.
Craig, you convince Americans to pay three times as much for shirts, socks and underwear and we'll bring it all back home.
It's much too late for that, Paul. Same as it's too late to convince people that a PC is still worth $5000.
I'm just suggesting that in the future, we might wanna try protecting our home grown industries instead of making a conscious decision to destroy them. Assuming we ever manage to create any new industries, again.
Posted by: Craig at May 19, 2010 4:49 pm
It's much too late for that, Paul. Same as it's too late to convince people that a PC is still worth $5000.
I'm just suggesting that in the future, we might wanna try protecting our home grown industries instead of making a conscious decision to destroy them. Assuming we ever manage to create any new industries, again.
PS Paul,
Craig, you convince Americans to pay three times as much for shirts, socks and underwear and we'll bring it all back home.
My jeans and shirts aren't any cheaper now than they were in the 1970s when they were made in the US. As far as I know, companies don't cut the prices on their products just because they've found a way to reduce their costs. They just bank the extra profits. The only reason computers and other electronics came down in price so much and so fast is that American companies started facing stiff competition from Taiwan and China. When Japan, Germany and South Korea were the only players the prices remained high, even after the manufacturing was outsourced.
Posted by: Craig at May 19, 2010 4:56 pm
Craig, you convince Americans to pay three times as much for shirts, socks and underwear and we'll bring it all back home.
My jeans and shirts aren't any cheaper now than they were in the 1970s when they were made in the US. As far as I know, companies don't cut the prices on their products just because they've found a way to reduce their costs. They just bank the extra profits. The only reason computers and other electronics came down in price so much and so fast is that American companies started facing stiff competition from Taiwan and China. When Japan, Germany and South Korea were the only players the prices remained high, even after the manufacturing was outsourced.
What bugs me is the damn drop in quality. And I don't mind paying for what lasts longer; that's paying for value. I had Russell Athletic (made in USA) sweats that lasted for 15 years---with regular use; now I sometimes buy other brands. And don't like them much better.
It's a funky analogy, but I knew an engineer who used the term "beer can gauge" steel.
Posted by: Paul S. at May 19, 2010 5:45 pm
It's a funky analogy, but I knew an engineer who used the term "beer can gauge" steel.
You gave me a good mental project; try to think of a "pass along the savings" example.
Posted by: Paul S. at May 19, 2010 6:27 pm
Craig;
I suggest we make the tax environment friendlier for corporations and manufacturers. We have a very high corporate income tax.
Of course you have to change the consensus that big rich companies ought to pay through the roof. Almost half of all citizens are not paying any federal income tax at all. And that's mostly middle-class folks deducting and itemizing their way out of it.
That is not sustainable.
Posted by: Toady at May 20, 2010 9:15 am
I suggest we make the tax environment friendlier for corporations and manufacturers. We have a very high corporate income tax.
Of course you have to change the consensus that big rich companies ought to pay through the roof. Almost half of all citizens are not paying any federal income tax at all. And that's mostly middle-class folks deducting and itemizing their way out of it.
That is not sustainable.
Toady, I'm no fan of taxation on businesses or on anyone else. It's a necessary evil but we should at least endeavor to create a fairer tax system.
But, lowering corporate taxes is not going to fix the problem. If a company has a choice between paying $1 an hour or $20 an hour for manual labor, the choice is obvious. If a company has a choice of paying $5 an hour or $70 an hour for professional/technical people, the choice is obvious. If a company has a choice of dealing with unions and labor laws or not dealing with unions and labor laws, the choice is obvious. If a company has a choice of dealing with restrictive regulations and state and local laws or not dealing with restrictive state and local laws, the choice is obvious.
Lowering the corporate tax rate will just make these companies export as much of their operations as they can to the 3rd world even more profitable than they already are, and won't help regular Americans in the slightest.
I'm not sure what will fix the problem, but I've got a couple ideas. One might be to require uniformity of salaries and benefits for American corporations, regardless of where they are operating. Getting a much lower quality of employee for the same price and having to deal with all the other problems of maintaining operations in a foreign country seems like it might encourage American companies not to shit where they live quite so much :)
Posted by: Craig at May 20, 2010 10:49 am
But, lowering corporate taxes is not going to fix the problem. If a company has a choice between paying $1 an hour or $20 an hour for manual labor, the choice is obvious. If a company has a choice of paying $5 an hour or $70 an hour for professional/technical people, the choice is obvious. If a company has a choice of dealing with unions and labor laws or not dealing with unions and labor laws, the choice is obvious. If a company has a choice of dealing with restrictive regulations and state and local laws or not dealing with restrictive state and local laws, the choice is obvious.
Lowering the corporate tax rate will just make these companies export as much of their operations as they can to the 3rd world even more profitable than they already are, and won't help regular Americans in the slightest.
I'm not sure what will fix the problem, but I've got a couple ideas. One might be to require uniformity of salaries and benefits for American corporations, regardless of where they are operating. Getting a much lower quality of employee for the same price and having to deal with all the other problems of maintaining operations in a foreign country seems like it might encourage American companies not to shit where they live quite so much :)
Also in the mix: I know of medical facilities that pulled their outsourcing back home because of quality and security concerns.
Posted by: Paul S. at May 20, 2010 3:49 pm
There was a case a few years ago where an Indian contract employee with an American healthcare facility hadn't been paid apparently and threatened to sell patient information.
Posted by: Paul S. at May 20, 2010 3:53 pm
[...] Berlinski at City Journal wonders why hardly anyone cares about the unread Soviet archives [via Michael Totten]. Ron Radosh responds. Berlinksi replies to him. Ron comes back [...]
Posted by: Poumastise « Poumista at May 21, 2010 8:00 am
Post a comment
