Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Don't know quite what to think of this, but isn't the national ID card idea just a more universal take on what we already have, namely the social security card and number plus drivers licenses? Most people who have them already use their drivers licenses for other types of ID, such as to buy liquor if they are of legal age to do so.
The national ID would just expand that idea to those who don't drive.

Yes. And since we already have state drivers' licenses and national social security cards I think the Big Brother disadvantages of having a national ID system would not be much beyond what we inherently have already. And whatever extra disadvantages is does bring to the table will be more than made up for by the advantages we'd get in security (if done right) and increasing potential to clean up illegal immigration and take our borders back.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Don't know quite what to think of this, but isn't the national ID card idea just a more universal take on what we already have, namely the social security card and number plus drivers licenses? Most people who have them already use their drivers licenses for other types of ID, such as to buy liquor if they are of legal age to do so.
The national ID would just expand that idea to those who don't drive.

In California those who don't drive are issued a State ID Card, which looks exactly the same as a DL except it doesn't give you permission to drive. There, a non-driver pretty much needs one to do everything else in life that drivers do.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

In California those who don't drive are issued a State ID Card, which looks exactly the same as a DL except it doesn't give you permission to drive. There, a non-driver pretty much needs one to do everything else in life that drivers do.

It's the same way in both North carolina and Tennessee.

Ohio, too.

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

In California those who don't drive are issued a State ID Card, which looks exactly the same as a DL except it doesn't give you permission to drive. There, a non-driver pretty much needs one to do everything else in life that drivers do.

It's the same way in both North carolina and Tennessee.

I believe Washington State has something similar as well, but I am not certain. I know about California mainly because my Mom didn't drive, and had a California SIDC in lieu of a DL.

The other day I noticed co-workers discussing Red Zone versus Blue Zone. They were assigning different places to different zones. Eventually they got to Colorado and somebody assigned it to the Red Zone-at which point I said I associated Boulder with Mork and Mindy, and then the conversation went off on a completely different tangent.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

The other day I noticed co-workers discussing Red Zone versus Blue Zone. They were assigning different places to different zones. Eventually they got to Colorado and somebody assigned it to the Red Zone-at which point I said I associated Boulder with Mork and Mindy, and then the conversation went off on a completely different tangent.

I'll tell ya, when I was walking around downtown Denver a couple of months ago I felt like I was in a toned-down Portland.

I have realised something; so far the whole strategy of the war in Iraq has been a 3T Elder Artist sort of strategy. That was the reason why it appealed to Defence Sec Rumsfeld, at the objections of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who favoured a 4Tapporach of mass invasion and occupation (like Germany and Japan after WW2). The Joint Chiefs of Staff calculated out that a war in Iraq would require 500,000 soldiers for the post-war occupation to full succeed, while the minimalist approach favoured only 50,000 soldiers.

Mainly using lots of latest and costliest technology, along with only minimal number of troops to defeat the enemy. The thinking behind this was mainly that once the Hussein regime was overthrown the people of Iraq would universally welcome the liberators and the country would become manageable for a short allied occupation. I supported this approach, blind to what was going to happen once Hussein?s regime was overthrown. Namely this low level insurgency which was been occurring for the last 2 years, which I can lay the blame of being not enough soldiers on the ground to bring rule of law and preparing Iraq for becoming a stable democratic society.

Clearly the current occupation plan is flawed at the very least needs to be changed and preferably Donald Rumsfeld be forced to resign. However how is the public going to react to the need for 500,000 soldiers on the ground in Iraq, a massive increase in defence spending which would be needed and reintroduction of the draft?

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

The other day I noticed co-workers discussing Red Zone versus Blue Zone. They were assigning different places to different zones. Eventually they got to Colorado and somebody assigned it to the Red Zone-at which point I said I associated Boulder with Mork and Mindy, and then the conversation went off on a completely different tangent.

I'll tell ya, when I was walking around downtown Denver a couple of months ago I felt like I was in a toned-down Portland.

I agree, when you compare say Downtown Manhattan, say to Rural Midwest, you see a huge difference in political outlook of the inhabitants. .

However if you compare most of America?s big cities (say Denver) to the rural areas of the state those cities are in. You can see more of a gradient in the political outlook of the inhabitants. That what I see in Australia, for example as you get out of the Melbourne?s inner suburbs and go all the way into the small rural towns upstate, the political views of the inhabitants gets gradually more anti-awakening and less awakening in it?s composition (Bendigo is 60% along this gradient.)

Originally Posted by Tristan

I have realised something; so far the whole strategy of the war in Iraq has been a 3T Elder Artist sort of strategy. That was the reason why it appealed to Defence Sec Rumsfeld, at the objections of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who favoured a 4Tapporach of mass invasion and occupation (like Germany and Japan after WW2). The Joint Chiefs of Staff calculated out that a war in Iraq would require 500,000 soldiers for the post-war occupation to full succeed, while the minimalist approach favoured only 50,000 soldiers.

...

Clearly the current occupation plan is flawed at the very least needs to be changed and preferably Donald Rumsfeld be forced to resign. However how is the public going to react to the need for 500,000 soldiers on the ground in Iraq, a massive increase in defence spending which would be needed and reintroduction of the draft?

I would not object too strenuously if Australia sent an extra 350,000 soldiers to the continent nearby. I would also be okay with a heavy tax on Australian incomes to fund this expedition. Perhaps 500,000 Antipodeans would take up all the burden-- the Americans could then turn their attention to the threat from the GWN.

This is going to turn out to be a third-turning Administration; it can't be otherwise.

The draft, and the money it would take, would render obsolete all their economic plans. No more tax cuts. No end to the progressive income tax. No wrecking of social security. Boo hoo!!!!!!

If these guys were serious about running Iraq, much less Iran (populatoin 100 million), they would have massively expanded the Army years ago. They aren't. This Adminstration, in my opinion, is unwittingly leading us into isolationism, because the government-busting part of its coalition is actually much stronger than the Neocon faction. So four years from now we'll enjoy the worst of both worlds: a hostile Iraq, a small military, and a totally unfriendly world. The grownups on other continents will be trying to clean up the mess we've made.

David K '47

Originally Posted by E. Michael Jones, Ph.D.

Suddenly the Master of the
Universe was talking about his grown daughter and his rocky relationship with
her?which, it seemed, was going from bad to worse. And why?
Well, because she never got over the fact that the Master of the Universe who
was going to bring peace to Bosnia and resolve centuries of ethnic conflict in
the region had divorced her mother, which is to say, his wife. The daughter was
portrayed as having some sort of psychological hang-up in this regard, as if an
attachment to her mother?s interests and the fact that her father had violated
them were something like a bad case of bulimia, which she had acquired while
away at college. The same man, in other words, who, we assume, could not
control his passions, the same man who could not keep his family together, the same man who could not honor his marriage vows and who
could not reason with his daughter, was going to bring peace to the Balkans.
Aristotle would have had a good laugh over that one.



...
The ancient Greek word for jerk is
?hero,? and, as Fleming tells us, ?The hero?s dilemma is portrayed starkly in
the case of Agamemnon, Homer?s ?lord of men,? who could not launch his divinely
sanctioned expedition against Troy
until he had first sacrificed his daughter.? Euripedes could have been describing the U.S. Department of State as its minions descended
on Bosnia to spread ?democracy? as they define it, or the same sort of people spreading
feminism in conquered Iraq
and Afghanistan.
?To be truly heroic, it seems, one may have also to be a monster.?...



It takes a novelist like Dickens,
however, to come up with a character like Mrs. Jellyby
in Bleak House, ?whose eyes?so
farsighted that ?they could see nothing nearer than Africa??overlook
the needs of her own children, friends and neighbors.?

Everyday Morality a review of Mr. Thomas Fleming's The Morality of Everyday Life: Rediscovering an Ancient Alternative to the Liberal Tradition

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by E. Michael Jones, Ph.D.

...?To be truly heroic, it seems, one may have also to be a monster.?...



It takes a novelist like Dickens,
however, to come up with a character like Mrs. Jellyby
in Bleak House, ?whose eyes?so
farsighted that ?they could see nothing nearer than Africa??overlook
the needs of her own children, friends and neighbors.?

Everyday Morality a review of Mr. Thomas Fleming's The Morality of Everyday Life: Rediscovering an Ancient Alternative to the Liberal Tradition

Yeah. Heroism is a virtue for the heroic in situations calling for heroism. The world is not the WWF. But I'm with Virgil (Rome's and ours): virtue is the ticket, and antiquity the Ticketmaster...ahem. Anyway, I was much impressed years ago by the book "After Virtue," by Alastair McIntyre (sp?). I will look at this one too. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Tristan

I have realised something; so far the whole strategy of the war in Iraq has been a 3T Elder Artist sort of strategy. That was the reason why it appealed to Defence Sec Rumsfeld, at the objections of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who favoured a 4Tapporach of mass invasion and occupation (like Germany and Japan after WW2). The Joint Chiefs of Staff calculated out that a war in Iraq would require 500,000 soldiers for the post-war occupation to full succeed, while the minimalist approach favoured only 50,000 soldiers.

Mainly using lots of latest and costliest technology, along with only minimal number of troops to defeat the enemy. The thinking behind this was mainly that once the Hussein regime was overthrown the people of Iraq would universally welcome the liberators and the country would become manageable for a short allied occupation. I supported this approach, blind to what was going to happen once Hussein?s regime was overthrown. Namely this low level insurgency which was been occurring for the last 2 years, which I can lay the blame of being not enough soldiers on the ground to bring rule of law and preparing Iraq for becoming a stable democratic society.

Clearly the current occupation plan is flawed at the very least needs to be changed and preferably Donald Rumsfeld be forced to resign. However how is the public going to react to the need for 500,000 soldiers on the ground in Iraq, a massive increase in defence spending which would be needed and reintroduction of the draft?

I agree. I've been saying for over a year now that what we have are 4T visions with 3T follow-through. Kinda like World War One and the League of Nations. Ah, Wilsonianism.

Please see the link I've made to Steve Barrera's blog in the Phony Fourth thread on this very topic!

I've also been saying how angry I am at Bush for (among many vital things) not committing the bare, bare minimum 250K soldiers (your 500K would certainly be better) to actually carry out the mission he has laid down. In perfect 3T style he has refused to either change the mission or bring the resources necessary to bear to attend to the mission.

WTF ever happened to the Powell Doctrine in this war and occupation?!? And the irony that he is in the cabinet when this is going on. :shock:

Your description of the Silentine approach to warfare was perfect. Couple that with a true-blue, on-the-edge-of-elderhood Prophet President and you indeed have 4T visions with 3T application. What a frickin' mess.

And don't get me started on "imminent threats" . . . or on where the hell Osama is . . . or how the Iraq War made us safer from Iran or especially North Korea . . . or how helping China build a huge techno-industrial infrastructure they can use against us militarily later in exchange for capital to fund our supernova of overconsumption makes us strategically better off . . .

Dubya is a complete and utter disaster.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

If these guys were serious about running Iraq, much less Iran (populatoin 100 million), they would have massively expanded the Army years ago. They aren't. This Adminstration, in my opinion, is unwittingly leading us into isolationism, because the government-busting part of its coalition is actually much stronger than the Neocon faction. So four years from now we'll enjoy the worst of both worlds: a hostile Iraq, a small military, and a totally unfriendly world.[Emphasis Mine]

You could very well be right. Once we're destitute from the Dollar Crash, how the hell are we going to be able to project force? And will we be in any mind to? Would we respond to Islamofascism and nuclear proliferation with Fortress America?

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

If these guys were serious about running Iraq, much less Iran (populatoin 100 million), they would have massively expanded the Army years ago. They aren't. This Adminstration, in my opinion, is unwittingly leading us into isolationism, because the government-busting part of its coalition is actually much stronger than the Neocon faction. So four years from now we'll enjoy the worst of both worlds: a hostile Iraq, a small military, and a totally unfriendly world.[Emphasis Mine]

You could very well be right. Once we're destitute from the Dollar Crash, how the hell are we going to be able to project force? And will we be in any mind to? Would we respond to Islamofascism and nuclear proliferation with Fortress America?

Careful about discussing 'Fortress America' as an alternative, Sean. I tried it once, over a year ago, and had the Lefties down on my neck like a ton of bricks for daring to do so. Their preferred answer to your questions would be for us to turn over our national sovereignty, on all levels, to the UN, or else some other One World Government (preferably Socialist and/or 'Transnational Progressivist').

Aside from that, though, I for one would have no problem with 'Fortress America' isolationism. In fact, I firmly believe that 'Fortress America' will come to be our only truly viable course of action long before the coming 4T is over and done with, and will likely remain our only viable option for a long time afterwards. I just don't trust the Democrats to ever go the 'Fortress America' route, under any circumstances.

Originally Posted by Sabinius Invictus

Aside from that, though, I for one would have no problem with 'Fortress America' isolationism. In fact, I firmly believe that 'Fortress America' will come to be our only truly viable course of action long before the coming 4T is over and done with, and will likely remain our only viable option for a long time afterwards. I just don't trust the Democrats to ever go the 'Fortress America' route, under any circumstances.

Won't happen. Under any regime. The way American enterprise has evolved we are dependent in many, many ways on globalization for the things that really matter to us - most of which involve consumption. I never cease to be amazed at the pessimism of the posters here. Do you folks really think the most important expression of American power abroad is military? America Inc. has many investors, and we have our tentacles all over the international scene. We hide it often by creating marketing shells for our companies and then 'importing' from them, but we still control them. A lot more of our wealth is a result of our connections abroad than may at first be apparent. In the future, we may have to be diplomatic like everybody else. Argue via the WTO etc. I think this will mean being LESS isolationist...also less bullying.

And about this dollar crash: there are dollars under mattresses all over the world. Who wants it? An adjustment, sure. But the decline of Yankee power will be gradual. A whimper, no bang. Look, people in other parts of the world are just as smart, now that they can play (we certainly spend a lot of wind telling them the rules) who wouldn't expect a certain flow of power and wealth away from us to them? We need to manage this intelligently and play to our strengths, which include our flexibility, our willingness to change direction on a dime and our willingness to award risk takers. (No, I'm not a liberal in this regard).

Yes, integration will involve relative economic decline. But isolationism? It ain't in the cards.

Originally Posted by Sabinius Invictus

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

If these guys were serious about running Iraq, much less Iran (populatoin 100 million), they would have massively expanded the Army years ago. They aren't. This Adminstration, in my opinion, is unwittingly leading us into isolationism, because the government-busting part of its coalition is actually much stronger than the Neocon faction. So four years from now we'll enjoy the worst of both worlds: a hostile Iraq, a small military, and a totally unfriendly world.[Emphasis Mine]

You could very well be right. Once we're destitute from the Dollar Crash, how the hell are we going to be able to project force? And will we be in any mind to? Would we respond to Islamofascism and nuclear proliferation with Fortress America?

Careful about discussing 'Fortress America' as an alternative, Sean. I tried it once, over a year ago, and had the Lefties down on my neck like a ton of bricks for daring to do so. Their preferred answer to your questions would be for us to turn over our national sovereignty, on all levels, to the UN, or else some other One World Government (preferably Socialist and/or 'Transnational Progressivist').

Aside from that, though, I for one would have no problem with 'Fortress America' isolationism. In fact, I firmly believe that 'Fortress America' will come to be our only truly viable course of action long before the coming 4T is over and done with, and will likely remain our only viable option for a long time afterwards. I just don't trust the Democrats to ever go the 'Fortress America' route, under any circumstances.

Which lefties are you talking about? CodePINK? The Lesbian Avengers?
I'm called a "liberal" here all the time, yet I have few problems with either the Fortress America, or Fortress Europe ideas.
The problem is the way you try and sell it.
Most right wingers tend to have "angry moments" (like liberals have those damn indecisive moments) and you make the idea sound more menacing than it really is.
All you have to recognize is
1) a society has the right to regulate how it functions
2) no society can deal with a liberal immigration policy for too long because
a) naturalization - in the sense of the word - becomes more difficult
b) demand becomes too high

So therefore:
3) for these reasons alone it becomes time to take a break

with that break I urge:
4) cutting the immigration bureaucracy; make it easier for old illegals to gain citizenship. make it easier on families from different countries.
Bill Bryson has some great commentaries in his books (his wife and two of his children are English - one was born in America)
It's just a confusing, messy, inefficient system.

So we can have our fortress - just make sure that
a) we leave out the metaphors about killing and maiming illegals
b) we provide them the civil rights they deserve, so that if we get the wrong guy and send him to Guantanamo Bay - he has a way to get out of that mess.

Checks and balances. Checks and balances.

Signed,
a Lefty

Originally Posted by Sabinius Invictus

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

If these guys were serious about running Iraq, much less Iran (populatoin 100 million), they would have massively expanded the Army years ago. They aren't. This Adminstration, in my opinion, is unwittingly leading us into isolationism, because the government-busting part of its coalition is actually much stronger than the Neocon faction. So four years from now we'll enjoy the worst of both worlds: a hostile Iraq, a small military, and a totally unfriendly world.[Emphasis Mine]

You could very well be right. Once we're destitute from the Dollar Crash, how the hell are we going to be able to project force? And will we be in any mind to? Would we respond to Islamofascism and nuclear proliferation with Fortress America?

Careful about discussing 'Fortress America' as an alternative, Sean. I tried it once, over a year ago, and had the Lefties down on my neck like a ton of bricks for daring to do so. Their preferred answer to your questions would be for us to turn over our national sovereignty, on all levels, to the UN, or else some other One World Government (preferably Socialist and/or 'Transnational Progressivist').

Aside from that, though, I for one would have no problem with 'Fortress America' isolationism. In fact, I firmly believe that 'Fortress America' will come to be our only truly viable course of action long before the coming 4T is over and done with, and will likely remain our only viable option for a long time afterwards. I just don't trust the Democrats to ever go the 'Fortress America' route, under any circumstances.

Note that I am not advocating for Fortress America, though under certain, horrible circumstances it would be the best policy, perhaps.

I was just saying that I think we will soon be in such an economic bind that our ability to project force will be seriously compromised. What choices do we have then?: Fortress America, international subordination, and nuclear brinkmanship. I doubt the second (your greatest fear) would come to pass at least in any extreme way, but who knows?

Originally Posted by lexpat

Originally Posted by Sabinius Invictus

Aside from that, though, I for one would have no problem with 'Fortress America' isolationism. In fact, I firmly believe that 'Fortress America' will come to be our only truly viable course of action long before the coming 4T is over and done with, and will likely remain our only viable option for a long time afterwards. I just don't trust the Democrats to ever go the 'Fortress America' route, under any circumstances.

Won't happen. Under any regime. The way American enterprise has evolved we are dependent in many, many ways on globalization for the things that really matter to us - most of which involve consumption. I never cease to be amazed at the pessimism of the posters here. Do you folks really think the most important expression of American power abroad is military? America Inc. has many investors, and we have our tentacles all over the international scene. We hide it often by creating marketing shells for our companies and then 'importing' from them, but we still control them. A lot more of our wealth is a result of our connections abroad than may at first be apparent. In the future, we may have to be diplomatic like everybody else. Argue via the WTO etc. I think this will mean being LESS isolationist...also less bullying.

And about this dollar crash: there are dollars under mattresses all over the world. Who wants it? An adjustment, sure. But the decline of Yankee power will be gradual. A whimper, no bang. Look, people in other parts of the world are just as smart, now that they can play (we certainly spend a lot of wind telling them the rules) who wouldn't expect a certain flow of power and wealth away from us to them? We need to manage this intelligently and play to our strengths, which include our flexibility, our willingness to change direction on a dime and our willingness to award risk takers. (No, I'm not a liberal in this regard).

Yes, integration will involve relative economic decline. But isolationism? It ain't in the cards.

The dependency argument was made prior to World War One. We did not return to Edwardian levels of per captia international trade until the 1970's. When push comes to shove, fear trumps greed. Plain and simple.

As for a Dollar Crash, or a similar economic calamity, we seem to just have a disagreement. To me it's rather simple: When you use your credit cards to live a 100K lifestyle while netting only 80K in income, in several years you will run up against ruinious interest payments and solid credit limits. Then when your creditors get nervous they jack up your rates making your interest payments even worse. An end game is at hand.

The analogy is not perfect by any means, but the basics are there. We are overconsuming like a Red Giant eating it's last nuclear fuel. We are clearly abusing the dollar's international reserve currency status and consequently playing with fire. We are in effect selling our techno-industrial infrastructure to China for short term gain, de-industrializing rather than post-industrializing. Indirectly all the hard work of the GI's is being wasted for Boomer indulgence. This will leave the Xer's, Millennials, and Homelanders to clean up (or live with) the subsequent paucity later.

We are living like there's no tomorrow. Problem is, tomorrow is just about due.

One can drown their worries in "not gonna happen", "it can't happen here", "we have connections", "we're too big to fail", but those are at best weak assurances, if not entirely illusionary.

Everything I interpret from history suggests to me that we are heading for a waterfall while happily singing "row-row-row-your-boat", if a little anxiously.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

The dependency argument was made prior to World War One. We did not return to Edwardian levels of per captia international trade until the 1970's. When push comes to shove, fear trumps greed. Plain and simple.

Yes, but back then it was all about trade and today it is all about capital flows and currency speculation. The elite, and the multinationals have gone international big time. No fortress economically. It simply doesn't serve the elite's interest and if there's anything this administration seems intent on it's serving the elite's interest. As for immigration...that's a different issue. The spigot should be turned on and off at times. Anyway, I'm much more worried about the haves of the world slowly making it more difficult for others to get into the game (class calcification as it were) than isolationism. The emerging global elite is scary - they move their money around wherever they want.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

As for a Dollar Crash, or a similar economic calamity, we seem to just have a disagreement. To me it's rather simple: When you use your credit cards to live a 100K lifestyle while netting only 80K in income, in several years you will run up against ruinious interest payments and solid credit limits. Then when your creditors get nervous they jack up your rates making your interest payments even worse. An end game is at hand.

I don't believe world finance works in a way analogous to personal finance. Today it's all about capital flows, and the currency speculation markets are huge. Governments control the processes and use them as political as well as economic tools. The international community has pressure it can bring to bear in many ways. They have already started to bring it , and will continue to do so....

More pointedly, I guess, do you guys think everybody on Wall Street and in the corporate boardrooms of America is an idiot? There are some dopes sure, but the Majority!?? No way...Bush econ policies are risky but they sure do serve the interests of a specific group...and nobody seems to care much about that.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Sabinius Invictus

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

If these guys were serious about running Iraq, much less Iran (populatoin 100 million), they would have massively expanded the Army years ago. They aren't. This Adminstration, in my opinion, is unwittingly leading us into isolationism, because the government-busting part of its coalition is actually much stronger than the Neocon faction. So four years from now we'll enjoy the worst of both worlds: a hostile Iraq, a small military, and a totally unfriendly world.[Emphasis Mine]

You could very well be right. Once we're destitute from the Dollar Crash, how the hell are we going to be able to project force? And will we be in any mind to? Would we respond to Islamofascism and nuclear proliferation with Fortress America?

Careful about discussing 'Fortress America' as an alternative, Sean. I tried it once, over a year ago, and had the Lefties down on my neck like a ton of bricks for daring to do so. Their preferred answer to your questions would be for us to turn over our national sovereignty, on all levels, to the UN, or else some other One World Government (preferably Socialist and/or 'Transnational Progressivist').

Aside from that, though, I for one would have no problem with 'Fortress America' isolationism. In fact, I firmly believe that 'Fortress America' will come to be our only truly viable course of action long before the coming 4T is over and done with, and will likely remain our only viable option for a long time afterwards. I just don't trust the Democrats to ever go the 'Fortress America' route, under any circumstances.

Note that I am not advocating for Fortress America, though under certain, horrible circumstances it would be the best policy, perhaps.

I was just saying that I think we will soon be in such an economic bind that our ability to project force will be seriously compromised. What choices do we have then?: Fortress America, international subordination, and nuclear brinkmanship. I doubt the second (your greatest fear) would come to pass at least in any extreme way, but who knows?

Ask some of your Leftie buddies which of the three they would prefer. I bet most of them would choose #2 (subordination) without any hesitation, as the only way to control the 'American Imperialist Monsters'. And any potential negative consequences that could flow from such an outcome they would just as quickly characterize as being our richly deserved collective punishment, for our multitude of national sins.

Originally Posted by lexpat

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

The dependency argument was made prior to World War One. We did not return to Edwardian levels of per captia international trade until the 1970's. When push comes to shove, fear trumps greed. Plain and simple.

Yes, but back then it was all about trade and today it is all about capital flows and currency speculation. The elite, and the multinationals have gone international big time. No fortress economically. It simply doesn't serve the elite's interest and if there's anything this administration seems intent on it's serving the elite's interest. As for immigration...that's a different issue. The spigot should be turned on and off at times. Anyway, I'm much more worried about the haves of the world slowly making it more difficult for others to get into the game (class calcification as it were) than isolationism. The emerging global elite is scary - they move their money around wherever they want.

No-one has that much control, the world is just too chaotic for things to work that way. And things can get out of control rather easily, esp. if the social order is obsolete, dysfunctional, and corrupt, and new values regime or regimes have implanted to further subvert the former, and you have a bunch of passionate, impulsive, idealist Prophets taking over the generational reigns of power in much of the world. It's a recipe for the disorder that can occur before a new order emerges.

The fact the capital flows have made such inroads since 1980 does not necessarily change the basics of history, just as unprecedented levels of trade in the Victorian and Edwardian periods did not.

Originally Posted by lexpat

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

As for a Dollar Crash, or a similar economic calamity, we seem to just have a disagreement. To me it's rather simple: When you use your credit cards to live a 100K lifestyle while netting only 80K in income, in several years you will run up against ruinious interest payments and solid credit limits. Then when your creditors get nervous they jack up your rates making your interest payments even worse. An end game is at hand.

I don't believe world finance works in a way analogous to personal finance. Today it's all about capital flows, and the currency speculation markets are huge. Governments control the processes and use them as political as well as economic tools. The international community has pressure it can bring to bear in many ways. They have already started to bring it , and will continue to do so....

So far all government involvement has done is to postpone and worsen the inevitable. Just because we are supposedly more "sophisticated" now doesn't necessarily mean we can suspend the laws of nature. Supply & Demand, and the No Free Lunch axiom will have their day. If you spend beyond your means, there will be consequences. If you speculate something out of nothing, you will pay back later.

Originally Posted by lexpat

More pointedly, I guess, do you guys think everybody on Wall Street and in the corporate boardrooms of America is an idiot? There are some dopes sure, but the Majority!?? No way...Bush econ policies are risky but they sure do serve the interests of a specific group...and nobody seems to care much about that.

Did everyone see 9/11 coming? Did everyone see the Fall of Communism coming? Did everyone see the '87 Crash coming? Did everyone see '80's disinflation coming? Did everyone see 70's stagflation coming? Did everyone see the Cuban Missile Crisis coming? Did everyone see the Chinese entry into the Korean War coming? Did everyone see WWII coming? Did everyone see the Great Depression coming? And on, and on, and on, and on, and on . . . .

People often make decisions based on the reigning Zeitgeist and the conventional wisdom even though those have been proven to wrong or disasterous time and time again.

And again, elites are often not in control of events, and sometimes even squable among themselves. To think there is some monolithic, all-powerful "elite" out there is silly.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by lexpat

More pointedly, I guess, do you guys think everybody on Wall Street and in the corporate boardrooms of America is an idiot? There are some dopes sure, but the Majority!?? No way...Bush econ policies are risky but they sure do serve the interests of a specific group...and nobody seems to care much about that.

Did everyone see 9/11 coming? Did everyone see the Fall of Communism coming? Did everyone see the '87 Crash coming? Did everyone see '80's disinflation coming? Did everyone see 70's stagflation coming? Did everyone see the Cuban Missile Crisis coming? Did everyone see the Chinese entry into the Korean War coming? Did everyone see WWII coming? Did everyone see the Great Depression coming? And on, and on, and on, and on, and on . . . .

People often make decisions based on the reigning Zeitgeist and the conventional wisdom even though those have been proven to wrong or disasterous time and time again.

And again, elites are often not in control of events, and sometimes even squable among themselves. To think there is some monolithic, all-powerful "elite" out there is silly.

And, specifically regarding lexpat's point, the goal of traders viz market fluctuations is to ride all the way up to the crest, but bail just before things go to hell. A manager who bails out too early is going to appear to underperform, relative to his peers, and is going to put himself and his fund in jeopardy. That's why the behavior of non-stock-market actors (such as the FED) are so critical to the behavior of the market as a whole.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

The fact the capital flows have made such inroads since 1980 does not necessarily change the basics of history, just as unprecedented levels of trade in the Victorian and Edwardian periods did not..

Well Mr. Gibbons Love William Jennings Bryant M.A. (though perhaps they'd prefer Darrow), it's nice to know the "Basics of History" have been discovered in a Mountain View cubicle. What's up with that? Sort of like Mormons with their tablets? Reminds me of that interesting article quoted here by the Asian based economist at SBC; what was it you said? "I could refute each of these points if I had the time." Yeah, Right. I think you should be more interested in facts and less in theory, or at least admit you have no interest in facts (something Steve_55, my counterpart on your right, noted before bowing out).