When he isn’t Jew-baiting, Pat Buchanan can be so on-target:
All of which raises a question. If Tokyo does not want Marines on Okinawa, why stay? And if Japanese regard Marines as a public nuisance, rather than a protective force, why not remove the irritant and bring them home?
Indeed, why are we still defending Japan? She is no longer the ruined nation of 1945, but the second-largest economy on earth and among the most technologically advanced.
The Sino-Soviet bloc against which we defended her in the Cold War dissolved decades ago. The Soviet Union no longer exists. China is today a major trading partner of Japan. Russia and India have long borders with China, but neither needs U.S. troops to defend them.
Should a clash come between China and Japan over the disputed Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, why should that involve us?
Comes the retort: American troops are in Japan to defend South Korea and Taiwan. But South Korea has a population twice that of the North, an economy 40 times as large, access to the most advanced weapons in the U.S. arsenal and a U.S. commitment to come to her defense by air and sea in any second Korean War.
{ 70 comments… read them below or add one }
Buchanan should’ve been president. He sure as hell would have made a better president than Obama.
“And if Japanese regard Marines as a public nuisance, rather than a protective force, why not remove the irritant and bring them home?”
Because ultra-conservative Americans and Japanese, like Pat Buchanan, would love to use the withdrawal of US Marines as a pretext for the Japanese government to become more aggressive in the region, particularly against China?
i agree that korea should be the primary defender when it comes to defending herself, but you can’t have it both ways. if korea is going to defend herself, the us needs to move it’s dictates aside on what kind of weapos sk can have.
Considering how much brand spanking new infrastructure they have at Pyeongtaek for families… the USFK is gonna be in Korea for awhile. I honestly think that USFK is considering their forces in Korea as “forward deployed” meaning that they can be moved to where they are needed quickly. Probably Afghanistan. So troops in Korea may be redeployed to Afghanistan, but their families will stay in Korea. That’s what it looks like when I see all the USFK videos of Pyeongtaek.
I’ve been following PJB since he was on Crossfire in the ’80s, and can’t remember one instance of Jew-baiting. Calling Congress “Israeli-occupied territory” hardly counts as Jew-baiting.
“Russia and India have long borders with China, but neither needs U.S. troops to defend them.” ???
India has over the years lost substantial territorial interests to Chinese expansionism, and the planned highway to link Nepal with China, following a long period of Maoist insurgency into Nepal, does not augur well for long term Indian interests.
re Japan Marines: you can’t bring ‘em home now – what would you do with 35,000 more unemployed people back in the states?
once the military-industrial juggernaut begins rolling, its tough to stop
Removing US troops from Okinawa/Japan is hardly going to ease tensions in the region. South Korea, North Korea, and China will certainly protest any increase of Japanese military capability. If textbooks are enough to spark tensions in the region, a new stronger and more aggressive Japanese military will help no one.
In an age of multi-trillion dollar deficits and endless red ink, I’m afraid the Empire will have very few choices about the consequences of imperial overstretch.
#5
Amen. I think we need to scuttle Political Correctness and acknowledge that the Israeli lobby has a powerful influence over US foreign policy.
One doesn’t have to be a fan of Israel or ignorant of the Israel lobby’s powers, to shake his head at #5 (whose author, for all we know, might not find Pat anti-Semitic ENOUGH for his tastes.)
Form a short list of Buchanan quotes…
During the Gulf crisis: “There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East — the Israeli defense ministry and its ‘amen corner’ in the United States.” (McLaughlin Group, 8/26/90)
In a 1977 column, Buchanan said that despite Hitler’s anti-Semitic and genocidal tendencies, he was “an individual of great courage…. Hitler’s success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path.” (Guardian, 1/14/92)
Writing of “group fantasies of martyrdom,” Buchanan challenged the historical record that thousands of Jews were gassed to death by diesel exhaust at Treblinka: “Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody.” (New Republic, 10/22/90) Buchanan’s columns have run in the Liberty Lobby’s Spotlight, the German-American National PAC newsletter and other publications that claim Nazi death camps are a Zionist concoction.
Buchanan called for closing the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Special Investigations, which prosecuted Nazi war criminals, because it was “running down 70-year-old camp guards.” (New York Times, 4/21/87)
Buchanan was vehement in pushing President Reagan — despite protests — to visit Germany’s Bitburg cemetery, where Nazi SS troops were buried. At a White House meeting, Buchanan reportedly reminded Jewish leaders that they were “Americans first” — and repeatedly scrawled the phrase “Succumbing to the pressure of the Jews” in his notebook. Buchanan was credited with crafting Ronald Reagan’s line that the SS troops buried at Bitburg were “victims just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps.” (New York Times, 5/16/85; New Republic, 1/22/96)
After Cardinal O’Connor criticized anti-Semitism during the controversy over construction of a convent near Auschwitz, Buchanan wrote: “If U.S. Jewry takes the clucking appeasement of the Catholic cardinalate as indicative of our submission, it is mistaken. When Cardinal O’Connor of New York seeks to soothe the always irate Elie Wiesel by reassuring him ‘there are many Catholics who are anti-Semitic’…he speaks for himself. Be not afraid, Your Eminence; just step aside, there are bishops and priests ready to assume the role of defender of the faith.” (New Republic, 10/22/90)
The Buchanan ’96 campaign’s World Wide Web site included an article blaming the death of White House aide Vincent Foster on the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad — and alleging that Foster and Hillary Clinton were Mossad spies. (The campaign removed the article after its existence was reported by a Jewish on-line news service; Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 2/21/96.)
I think we can say of Buchanan what has often been said of Churchill: he is often right, but when he’s wrong, oh my god!
Putting Jew-baiting and the Israel lobby to the side for the moment (this is a Korea blog, after all), Buchanan is absolutley right about withdrawing the Marines from Okinawa. Washington likes to say that US troops on foreign soil are there at the pleasure of the local goverment, and if asked to leave, they will.
Well, it’s now pretty clear that the new DJP government in Tokyo, the governor of Okinawa, and the mayor and citizens of Nago now want the US to pack up Futenma and leave. It’s time Washington listened. There are plenty of alternative sites for these forces, and the closing almost two decades ago of the Subic Naval and Clark Air Force bases in the Philippines resulted in no discernable impact on America’s ability to maintain security in the region. The good people of Okinawa deserve just as much.
BTW, Buchanan and his American Conservative magazine are useful reminders of what intellectual conservativism can look like in an Age of Palin. Given the depths to which NRO and The Weekly Standard have fallen, theirs a much-needed corrective.
DLB
China grabbed Mischief Reef shortly after the U.S. packed up. Who knows what designs they have for the Senkaku/Diaoyu islets — not that it should he U.S. that deters them when wealthy Japan can.
Excatly right! Mischief Reef and the Senkakus are precisely the type of trivial territorial squables that American taxpayers should NOT be fronting the bill for. Japan and Korea are, after all, very right countries indeed, and are (or rightly should be) more that able to provide for their own security.
In the grand realm of global security, the US should focus on the heavy lifting and leave lesser concerns for lesser countries.
DLB
As an American tax payer… I like having a whole combat ready U.S. Marine division forward deployed in Asia pretty much subsidized by Japanese tax payers.
It’s essentially having more… for less… and closer to the potential hot spots.
If China one day gets a lock on the South and East China Seas — and they are working on it — that will hardly be a “trivial territorial squabble”.
Look to China to test every sign of a lack of allied resolve in the region.
I don’t disagree with DLB’s contention that locals should deal with these issues, only with the notion that a US departure will have no consequence.
umm… i must agree with marm on this one. (well, i don’t really know about the buchanan jew baiting thing, since i just don’t follow buchanan at all.)
The only reason why US should stay is if there is a good reason to believe it would thwart the proliferation of nuclear weapons. There is good reason for the Japanese and South Koreans to trust American nuclear commitment with soldiers defending it. If this is a non-issue, why not. Could at least seriously scale back the presence and save $$$$$$.
I like $$$$$$.
@ #17,
Well… there might be some basis to challenge that. Korea is essentially home to the U.S. 2nd Infantry Division and Okinawa is home to the U.S. 3rd Marine Division. The costs of operating these basis is partially subsidized by the Japanese and Korean governments. Particularly in Okinawa’s case, I believe between 50-60% of the costs of the base is paid for by the Japanese government.
My question is this (and it’s a serious one): would it be cheaper to base these units in U.S. territories with purely U.S. government money? If it is, my resistance to the idea fades. If we can do the same for less money let’s do it! However, if it costs more or the same to house the these units in U.S. territories then the only cost savings that can be realized is to demobilize the aforementioned divisions. That’s essentially laying off 50-60k personnel and circulating them back into the workforce in this challenging economy. Simply sending them all the Iraq or Afghanistan will actually cost us more money… and rebasing them in U.S. territories may not save any additional moeny… so from a purely cost analysis approach eliminating their bases will probably mean we would have to demobilize the divisions.
Okay…. so at the end of the day, are we safer with 50-60k fewer troops and the inability to move forces quicker to the Middle East and support them? I think that’s the larger question at the end of the day.
In the third sentence… that’s *bases* not basis.
Maybe the best solution is to have our allies foot more of the bill? I see good benefit to having troops Middle East staging areas in Asia. And if it can cost us less than stationing them in say Guam instead, then economically, why not?
We should stay only as long as we’re asked to, obviously. The Japanese left would be pretty stupid to ask the US to leave, however, so I doubt they’ll do so. As soon as the US leaves, there will be domestic pressure on the Japanese government to remilitarize, exactly what the Japanese left would like to avoid. Despite NIMBY protests from Okinawa locals, I doubt the US would be asked to leave.
The problem I have with using a strictly economic matrix in determining whether US troops should stay or go — our allies should foot more of the bill, etc. — is that it makes American servicemen and women looks like hired mercenaries. The point is to have rich countries provide for their own defense. This is what serious countries do.
I don’t care if Seoul and Tokyo front 100 percent of the cost of US forces in Asia. With the end of the Cold War, and the rise of once basketcase economies into the ranks of the world’s wealthiest countries, the ossified rationale for a US troop presence in Asia falls back on inertia.
When the Cold War ended, Soviet troops pulled out of their Cold War foxholes. So too should American troups. They are needed elsewhere.
DLB
Wow… Obama has zero fiscal discipline!
Per Economist, Barack Obama is spending more on defence than his predecessors!
http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15453158
DBL,
More on your points later, but one interesting historical note. Colonial financial obligations to station troops within one’s territory was one of the main reasons why the American colonies revolted against the British.
DLB, not DBL. Sorry.
Per Economist, Barack Obama is spending more on defence than his predecessors!
Ummm, what’s the difference between Democrats and Republicans again?
As Ralph Nader says we are living in what’s essentially a one-party dictatorship. Both Dems and Reps both sold out to special interests and corporate lobby. It was Bill Clinton who revoked the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, which laid the foundations for 2008′s Big Banks Gone Wild crisis, within the broader context of deregulation that started with the Reagan Revolution. And both Reps and Dems contributed to loosening standards in the mortgage industry until we had absurdities like the NINJA loans (no income, no job or assets).
Going Independent in 2012!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/PerCapitaInflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG
DL Barch wrote:
To which Slim replied:
Having seen numerous PRC maps showing all of the Spratleys as Chinese territory and the East and South China Seas as Chinese territorial waters, I side with Slim. Even small maps of China in the corner of newscasts include a dotted line demarcating China’s Manifest Destiny in Asia.
(1) The American public have shown good sense by keeping the likes of Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader, and any other third party candidates out of the White House.
(2) @pawikirogii
It would be interesting to see what American strategic planners would think would be the better of two bad choices, should she pull her military out of the peninsula. America would no longer have a say in what kind of missile technology the ROK could develop. However, it is ultimately in America’s best interest to keep nuclear weapons out of the ROK’s arsenal. However, imposing sanctions on a nuclear armed ROK would not be an easy thing to do–the cost of such an antagnoistic move could be on a catastrophic level, in terms of maintaining trust, goodwill, and influence in the region. Plus, there is a perverse good reason to let the ROK go nuclear–which is to constrain China as she inevitably becomes a military power over the next one hundred years.
(3) I’ve always thought that the best reason for keeping troops in Japan and Korea was to ensure that neither kickstarted a nuclear arms race in the region. The principle problem would be how the DPRK and Taiwan would react. The ROK and Japan would most certainly have to go nuclear. I can’t see how their longterm interests would be well-served by not arming themselves.
The loss of American military pressure on China and the DPRK would dramatically decrease the level of security for Japan and the ROK. Consequently, China and the DPRK would have to increase the aggressiveness in their military stances against the democracies. It seems to me that our presence in Korea and Japan serve really to tamp down insecurity in east-Asia. This buys time for the region to become economically integrated and for trust to build. But lasting trust can never form between communists and democracies in east Asia without American military presence. And although American tax dollars would be spent to keep the peace in east Asia, it is most definitely in America’s and the region’s best interest that America be the one to do so. There is a chicken or the egg question here. Most people here seems to think that the region is secure enough for America to leave. But I think the region merely appears stable as a consequence of having American bases there.
But this should change in a couple of decades when it becomes apparent to everyone that China’s military has become a real threat. At that point, who knows what kind of use American bases will have.
Also, I think the probability is neither high nor low on whether India and China can ultimately avoid a major war over territory. India is definitely losing contested territory to the Chinese bit by bit.
Also, the above post was made without edit, which it clearly requires, but I think the gist is understandable.
DLB,
I am personally reluctant to withdraw all our troops from Asia and Europe right now because it will leave a big huge vacuum in the world. Strange and unpredictable things happen when huge vacuums are left. Our rather delicate global economy relies on predictability and the free flow of commodities. Back in the early part of the 20th century the United States could afford to be isolationist because it provided most of its commodities, including oil. Sure some people say that we only get 7-10% of our oil from the Middle East. That’s irrelevant. Why? Because although we may only get a minority of our oil from the Middle East, the rest of the world gets a majority of their oil from the Middle East. What happens when there is instability in oil supply? There is a huge change in the worldwide price and availability in oil. So if China, Germany and/or Japan can’t get their Middle East oil then their economies tank and takes our economy along with it. Take away Middle East oil… hell, even threaten it… and you get $200 a barrel oil. Welcome $7 a gallon gas in America. $7 a gallon sucks, doesn’t it? Hell, even political instability in Nigeria will affect oil prices by $15-20 a barrel. How much more will prices be affected if there is instability in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the Gulf States, Russia, etc. Currently, today’s worldwide economy depends on cheap oil. I wish that wasn’t true, but it is for the foreseeable future.
So, how do we get our troops out of their worldwide bases? We must find other ways to power our cars and factories. that don’t depend on fossil fuels. Also, we need to have an alternative system to create stability in the world that don’t require safe and stable shipping lanes around the world. This system currently doesn’t exist. We should have more countries that can help the U.S. maintain stable shipping lanes and stability in unstable regions. The U.S. shouldn’t bear so much of the burden but until this system is tangible and real, we are the only game in town. Sucks, but that’s one of the “perks” of winning WWII and the Cold War. However, another perk of winning WWII and the Cold War is an economy that can spend more than it produces and still be the largest economy in the world. That’s a good thing. Yes, our strange economy of a dominate dollar that we can print and print and print and to accumulate debt ad infinitum depends on us being a hegemon. I wish that wasn’t true as well, but I don’t think that’s going to change in the foreseeable future either. Shit, just look at the current federal budget!
Wangkon:
Wait til te debt/GDP raito hits 100%. That’s for some reason some breaking threshold, after that a nation is pretty much crippled. She goes on, but on a wheelchair. I grew up in a nation with that kind of debt and i know how it feels, it is a struggle to survive every year…now the US due to the factors you mentioned may defy laws of gravity for a bit, but eventually (and not a very distant eventually) reality will set in.
My armchair strategist prediction is that we will see a major dismantling and selling off of American military assets by the end of the decade.
The debt/GDP ratio has already hit 100%. America’s GDP is approximately US$14 trillion per year (and some would say that US$2 trillion of that is fueled by government expenditure which is borrowed). In just a few days Congress is going to authorize an additional US$1.9 trillion increase in the authorized debt ceiling of US$12.4 trillion, and that money is projected to be completely spent by November 2010, at which time Congress will be authorizing yet more borrowing.
My expectation? By the end of Obama’s single, disastrous four-year term, the total debt will exceed US$20 trillion, and we will be well and truly screwed.
The reason I hate Obama and the Democrats is that even in the face of the impending disaster, they are determined to accelerate our government’s wild spending. National insolvency or severe inflation are the only two possibilities — and they both completely suck.
The guy took over the wheel of a bus heading toward a cliff, and he thinks the solution is to step on the gas. Floor it! And he had the tone-deafness to joke about Thelma & Louise in a health-care speech trying to sell America on exactly the same outcome…
Last night I figured my US tax return. Even though I’ve lived in Korea permanently since 1997 I have to write this motherfucker Obama a check for several tens of thousands of dollars this year on top of the W125 million in taxes I’ve paid the Republic of Korea. Since I know the US government is now engaged in simply wasting that money, it really chaps my hide. I might as well light the money on fire.
Agreed 100% Brendon and let me add on a personal note i particularly detest to see money thrown down the toilet to enforce a whacked-out liberal agenda, but that’s just me.
Also the American GDP is largerly a manufactured number (some people say 1/5 of it is basically fake) thanks to so called hedonics:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/87255-how-washington-is-fooling-you-trick-1-hedonic-pricing
This is a kind of trickery no other developed or semi-developed nation uses, even if probably China fudge the numbers even more.
The only good thing America has going for herself now is that Europe is in such abject state that the US will probably retain her safe haven status for a while.
Pawi: soon America will not dictate anything to anybody even military-wise, and a nuclear Asian arms race will be next, by the way it will be a much safer world, everybody should have nukes (hell i want my country too to have nukes), it is a proven fact equilibriums based on terror are the most solid.
The only combat troops in Korea are in the partial brigade in the 2nd Infantry Division (normally a division has three brigades). Essentially, USFK is a just big headquarters – in place to command troops that would deploy to Korea in the event of another war with the North.
So far all intents and purposes, there are no combat troops in Korea to deploy to Afghanistan.
Just like a bunch of contard cocksuckers to ignore the previous administrations exorbitant expenditures. Redumblikkkans got out of the drivers seat just in time to blame liberals for their failures. Don’t you all realize it’s just a game, and yearning for a pat on the head and a scooby-snak will not gain you shit. Wake the fuck and spit out the party cock. Vote center and remember what your precious amurrica (supposedly) used to represent, The People, NOT the corporate elite. Being overseas won’t protect you from the destruction of the exalted american ideal. Do you really think it’s a permanent concept? Why do you think there is so much downward pressure on wages? Profit for the elite and nothing more.They don’t give a fuck about the good old ufuckingsofa. When other cheap labor markets price themselves out of “shareholder” sensibilities, higher wage areas need to be destroyed and re(down)valued. god.If a dumbass like me can think of this, don’t you think the moneyed and powerful stringpullers haven’t already done so? Start a garden you toadies.
Just one question before i go to bed…Just exactly WHERE do you think the societal/economic attack will come from, you dumbo/rethugli/crat/tards? From out there, where you NEED to make your next attack on those you hate, or from your blind side, where you don’t care to look?
@ # 35,
One brigade, the 5th, is already in Afghanistan. The 2nd brigade is sometimes stationed in South Korea and sometimes stationed in Fort Lewis, WA. In 2004 the 2nd was in Korea and then transferred to Iraq. It seems as if the U.S. army rotates one brigade and stations one brigade in Korea permanently, the 1st heavy (although I’m not 100% sure about this).
In total, the 2nd has four troop brigades plus an aviation brigade: 1 heavy mechanized and three Stryker. The heavy and the aviation brigade are permanently stationed in Korea. It appears (haven’t verified) that one of the other infantry brigades rotates in and out of Korea.
Oh, forgot… the 2nd ID also has an artillery brigade that’s attached to it. It doesn’t appear to be formally part of the division’s organizational structure, but seems like it reports to it.
Put everything together and the 2nd ID has a lot of combat firepower… it’s organized almost like a mini-Corps.
Just because Bush was wrong doesn’t make the other characters right.
@Brendon Carr
“The reason I hate Obama and the Democrats is that even in the face of the impending disaster, they are determined to accelerate our government’s wild spending. National insolvency or severe inflation are the only two possibilities — and they both completely suck.”
Obama has been pushing for the right things. But the good are being buried within political theater. And due to his peculiar strengths and weaknesses in public communication, he has been doing a terrible job of communicating to the public what kind of data he is receiving on the economy, while the opposition has been foolishly doing a good job of muddling his message. The behavior of conservatives today is reminiscent of the idiocy of liberals during the Bush years.
I also wouldn’t blame the entire Democratic party; nor would I exonerate most conservatives, be they Republicans or Libertarians for the inability to cut spending. To blame just the Democratic party is to be seriously out of the loop. It is clear that there is a partnership comprised of a core of Democrats and Republicans who are doing the most to create a concensus in Congress to make painful spending cuts. But what is holding up progress is the American people–ourselves–in the form of consituent politics. As long as political seats are on the line, Congress as a whole will continue to act irrationally.
This is why the defeat of the Obama-backed proposal to create a statutory fiscal commission on reducing debt was devastating news. The panel would have had the power to force an up-or-down vote on their recommendations, ensuring that the key problems and their solutions would be voted on. This was a Democrat’s proposal, backed by the president and with bi-partisan support of a majority of Senators. However, a large bi-partisan minority successfully defeated it for appalling political reasons.
So instead, Obama may be forced to create a commission by Executive Order. This is the next best thing he could do to directly address the fiscal dysfunction. But it is deficient because Congress would be allowed to distort the recommendations.
As for the budget, I did not have problems with it. Obviously, what was in it was pure political theater. In its introduction, the budget says that they are on a fiscally unsustainable path. The budget was offered anyway even though it would not solve any problems because everyone expects that Congress will not agree to any budget.
The main concern at the present is clearly not inflation. The debt issue is looming and I do think we have much less than five years before creditors turn us away. But Obama is rightly focusing on the two most present concerns–(1) avoiding a double-dip recession and (2) stimulating job creation. The solution to both necessarily exacerbates the debt crisis, but I think creditors will have to for various reasons let us deal with it for now.
Ultimately, three solutions must all be applied to restore our fiscal health: (1) spend to exit the recession and leave behind the threat of a double-dip recession; (2) raise taxes; and (3) decrease spending across the board, including in social security, in national health programs, and in defense, starting by winding down our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. We cannot leave out any one of these solutions. They all must be applied.
Brendon, you are clearly a very intelligent man. And so I think you should consider well not to focus only on the third solution. That will not nearly be enough. We obviously cannot raise taxes until we solve the first problem. But one day, everyone will have to see tax raises. Finally, the first solution must be applied before we can successfully apply the last two. There is no point in fearing either the Great Inflation or the Great Debt Crisis, if our recovery turns into a Japan-style lost decades. Japan today is in a devastating deflationary crisis and their debt problem is much greater than ours. It is also foolish to ignore the success of our loose monetary policy and fiscal stimuli in having averted Great Depression II. I am appalled by how many Americans are willfully oblivious to the consequence of allowing one’s own credit market to vanish.
#31
Does Wangkon936 ever say anything that informed people don’t already know? Why does it take two unwieldy, clumsy paragraphs to state that if not for Pax Americana enforced by US military omnipresence, globalized trade would unravel?
Except that Pax Americana is a myth, useful only for those whose ideology demands it and those who stand to lose from a rollback in defense policy.
Furthermore, WK’s use of the Pax Americana argument is hackneyed, woefully obsolete and irrelevant in today’s reality.
The fact that America has over 700 military bases around the world is a legacy of the Cold War, NOT of some conscious bureaucratic decision to protect commercial shipping lanes or whatnot. After the Soviet Union fell, imperial overstretch needed justification so the think tanks that sprouted during the Reagan era, like CATO and the Heritage Foundation, practically invented the Pax Americana argument as the justification.
The fact of the matter is, American military might does not prevent Somali pirates equipped with AK-47s, RPGs and speedboats from capturing supertankers. American military might does not prevent Russia from using the on-off valve on the natural gas pipeline to Europe as a political tool. American military might has no influence over Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, another major oil producer.
Pax Americana is about as practical and realistic as that other quaint Cold War notion, that America should be able to fight two major wars at the same time.
Al Qaeda and the Age of Terrorism has also taught us that the American military is only good at one thing, fighting other conventional powers. The reason why China is building up its navy, developing ballistic missiles designed to knock out carrier groups, and cultivating bases all around SE Asia is precisely because of concern of protection of commercial shipping lanes – from the US Navy!
NetKim,
My #31 was not written very well. Complete stream of consciousness without regard to a lot of formal structure. Hey, it even has [more] grammar and punctuation errors [than usual]. I’ve been busy lately.
And you are right, many informed people do know this, but judging by some of the comments before # 31, it seemed as if many other people still didn’t.
Oh, and I largely disagree with your # 42, but I don’t know if I’ll have the time to properly respond to it.
First time i agree on something with NK, sorry for having such a lowlife mentality but my impression is most of the American military complex is basically pork…hell a 700+ billion pie a year is not something you want to let go so easily
wook etc. i didn’t understand much of what you said but i like your attitude, if every liberal was like you they would be a much more likable lot
lollabrats: are you sure Great Depression # 2 has been avoided ? I would wait a few more years
I personally think all this Obama hatred is retarded.
DLB
#44
but I don’t know if I’ll have the time to properly respond to it.
That is a cop-out.
In your #31, you also spend a great deal of verbiage on the price and supply of oil as a major justification of continuing Pax Americana at great cost to the US taxpayer. If you put it that way, then defense spending is effectively a proxy government subsidy of the fossil fuel industry. For argument’s sake, I will assume this is true, because in some sense, it is. Obama has further stated in his State of the Union speech that there will be a 3 year spending freeze on everything except the entitlement programs and defense and as you pointed out with the article from the Economist yesterday, Obama’s budget for defense is a record high.
As far as I’m concerned, a $200 per barrel price for oil is not a bad thing. Because that suddenly makes solar and wind energy seem more economical. Complaining about oil prices going up is like complaining about the price of cigarettes going up.
Meanwhile what are the Chinese doing with their stimulus money? Working on building their infrastructure, such as a high speed rail network. They are also pouring hundreds of billions into renewable energy sources, building tons of wind turbines and ultra high voltage DC long haul transmission lines everywhere.
So while the US is busy protecting the shipping lanes for the safe passage of oil the Chinese are busy investing in sources of energy that reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels, creating millions of jobs, and building manufacturing and technological leadership in the green tech industries.
While the “awakening dragon” is striving towards the future, you are proposing to maintain a very expensive policy leftover from the Cold War for the sake of protecting big oil, which is a relic of the past. The problem is there’s too many who think like that which is why the US is in very big trouble.
46 gangpehmoderniste
“lollabrats: are you sure Great Depression # 2 has been avoided ? I would wait a few more years ”
We certainly have. We are not in it right now. And I don’t regret it. I don’t regret that we don’t currently have a quarter or a third of all adult Americans without jobs. I don’t regret that we have kept our capitalist system and not have had to resort to barter economy. We should have been in Great Depression II these last two+ years after our credit market had evaporated. Only extremely controversial actions taken by Treasury and the Fed have kept us out.
You said that crossing the 100% debt to GDP ratio would be some kind of “breaking threshold.” But Japan has twice now within 70-80 years proven that +200% is dangerously burdensome for the most massive economies, but not quite deadly.
We just need to ensure that we do not double-dip back into another recession. After all, the only sizeable demand driving our economic recovery is government spending. There is not nearly enough private demand to create jobs and sell products. Were we to stop our insane spending, demand would completely collapse and then we would most definitely find ourselves in distress.
lollabrats: the depression i suspect is just in inning # 2
question what is gonna happen to GDP, unemployment (which is in real terms around 20% btw) when the crazy spending slows down ?
I think Japan proves my point: what was once a country powerful enough to cause America nightmares now has a GDP at Southern European levels….2 decades lost just limping around
@ gangpehmoderniste
Actually, Japan does not prove your point. You are foretelling complete disaster for America. But Japan did not go through an economic contraction with the characteristics of a Great Depression. And to say that Japan growing at Southern European levels is bad completely misses the point. America must suffer because too many of us accepted nonsensical pop conservative economic theories of laissez faire policies and deficit spending. To say that we don’t deserve to have a massive contraction of our GDP is nonsense. The question is what kind of recovery are we going to want to experience.
We can do as the Ron Paul folks suggest and completely let Too Big To Fails fail, tighten our fiscal and monetary policies, and suffer through Great Depression II until American households have paid off their public debts. However, once you are in a depression, what is the guarantee that you will ever come out? The problem with depression is that it is difficult for the public to earn enough to necessarily be able to pay off its debts. And I swear to you that capitalism is more desirable than barter economy. Finally, had we entered Great Depression II in 2007, then the world today would be a complete disaster. For instance, The ROK completely depended on China’s Keynsian policies to not only dig themselves out of their slump, but have an impressive year. But China’s ability to spend its way out of the global financial crisis did in part depend on the value of American debts not turning completely worthless.
Or we could stay out of depression and recession, but remain in this quasi twilight zone economy indefinitely. The upside is that we have more employment than not this way, we keep capitalism, and we give ourselves the best chance we have at waiting out our purgatory in the best possible shape. I think this is the much lesser of the two evils we face, based on the consequences of the types of policies being argued in the public sphere.
Our financial crisis was decades in the making. Obama is the one who is getting yelled at because he is the one who has to clean up the mess. It is true that no economic model has an uncontroversial exit strategy from (near) economic ruin; however, the Keynesian strategy currently gives us the best and possibly only shot. This is why we are trying it.
Let’s be clear, our option is not between USA 2005 and 1932. It is between USA 2010 and 1932.
The above post requires at least two points of clarification:
(1) I should make a distinction between deficit spending as a desperation move to escape recession and deficit spending during the good times.
(2) The ROK, of course, also had its own stimlus package.
lollabrats: well Japan ahd the luck to ride for 15 years a booming global economy, now with everybody still in recession/depression or quasi recession i doubt we will have this luxury for years.
No i don’t forecast disaster for America, i think overall she will fare better than Europe: lower population density and lots of natural resources, i forecast disaster if this fiscal insanity is not decreased to some reasonable pace.
If i didn’t misunderstand you that’s what you want: freeze the economy in some kind of zombie Japanesque status and gradually reduce the imbalances of the last decades (i agree the current situation was not Obama’s fault).
Well it is in my view not very advisable for 2 reasons.
First of all cos it’s dangerous, situation is too fragile some country might still go belly up (i wouldn’t rule out a China depression either) fucking up the whole delicate equilibrium
Second reason is more psychological: I’m a 35 years old Italian i grew up in an economy that was stagnant for the last 20 years (due to our enormous public debt), guess what ? It sucks, mind you we are fed, clothed and we have decent housing conditions and lots of cars around, but we have no hope. We know the next generations will be poorer than us and they will have to live in a second or third rate country where no matter what you do, things will not improve. That kills your self esteem, your ambitions, eventually your happiness. We are consistenty ranked as the most depressed people on earth together with the Germans (another stagnant no future cesspool)
Well guess what ? I’ve chosen the criminal path (yes i did for real, nothing major though) cos at least, as shitty as it is, beats being a complete looser.
This is what you want for your country, your kids, your family ? This is not the American way and sure as hell it is not the Asian way
Is this the third thread you’ve mentioned this in or the fourth? Losing count here.
#53
i wouldn’t rule out a China depression either
China is not going to have a depression. Bumps and hiccups along the way, yes. But not a depression. It’s practically a guarantee.
Goddamn, 1억 2천 5백 just for taxes? That’s alot of dough. You must be really living the life in Korea, huh? I hope you’re doing alot of good works Mr. Carr.
As I wrote so frequently, the war between China and Japan will happen within 10 years. Pat is just stating what many Americans have been thinking. And, Obama thinks the same way.
In the days to come, the US Forces will slowly withdraw from Korea and Japan. I think the USFK was kept because many US politicians took money from the Japanese. However, now equal number of them(Dems?) take money from the Chinese!
So, since equal forces are at play, the US will pull the troops out of Korea and Japan and let the chips fall where they may.
This will lead to the war between China and Japan. And, pull both SK and NK into it. My guess is that the most casualties will be Koreans.
Bye, bye the Miracle of Han River.
This may be overkill on overkill but, Baduk, please bring back the crazy cat avatar.
Baduk I have a question. Do you actually play 바둑?
53 gangpehmoderniste
There is no doubt that the long-term financial difficulty in Japan has profoundly affected its society, especially in the form of the rise of the vegetarian male phenomenon. And there is no doubt that a massive destruction of wealth in China, especially, would throw the entire world into financial distress. But still, the question you haven’t answered is whether stagnant growth is truly worse than Great Depression II. This is, ultimately, the single most important point teabaggers refuse to explain. They speak as if loose monetary policy and fiscal stimuli have had no effect on the economy as yet, but that its effect will only be financial destruction sometime soon. I just find this belief incomprehensible.
You cannot have it both ways: you cannot have tight fiscal and monetary policy right now and also continue the economic recovery. The basic plan Obama is following is that the US government, being the only entity on earth that can replace the loss of American private sector demand, must hold down the fort on the demand side by spending while in great debt until the American private sector recovers. Otherwise, our businesses will not be able to maintain even our present weak level of economic activity.
This is why I think we should bite the bullet short term. And it looks like Obama will pivot and tighten policy on the fiscal side starting in 2011. We are going to be out of Iraq, the mission in Afghanistan will begin to wind down, and we will freeze some discretionary spending. I think that this is largely the best compromise that any president could have offered with such a weak hand.
lollabrats: yes you’re right i should have been clearer: Korea 97-98, everybody thought the country was fucked, major depression and the IMF noose on their neck and looked how they bounced, it was the beginning of a golden decade.
the answer is, it depends on how you bounce back from a depression, some countries react very quickly like Korea, some countries like America in the 30′s took longer but eventually emerged stronger than ever. Some others like many South American nations never make it. Don’t you have confidence in American people ? I do, i know what they’re capable of in time of need. Oh and i dig Ron Paul
baduk: there will be an Asian cold war but no actual conflict, by that time Asians will be so rich, rich people don’t go to war. They will be content with humiliating Japan at political and economic level.
NK: in China grandiose Long March toward world domination, i’m sure a depression here and there will look like a hiccup, but a Chinese-size hiccup will be enough to make the world shake. The US in the 19th century had many depressions (13 i think ?)
lollabrats, i forgot one point: don’t assume the private sector will resume its growth and that Keynesian mega stimulus will just be a temporary patch. It is very dangerous to make the private sector a public money junkie…at some point it becomes easier selling to the Government than innovating and creating demand for your own goods&services.
Personally i thought Silicon Vallley had begun her own decline when i read the sector that attracted the highest amount of VC money was security systems
Last thing you want, trust me, is a bunch of PE guys sucking up capital to buy basic infrastructure like roads, water pipes etc. sold and leased back by a Government desperate to raise the cash to pay for food stamps and healthcare.
“$7 a gallon sucks, doesn’t it?”
You get used to it, pretty much that in the UK, and not such a long way behind here in Korea.
“We should have more countries that can help the U.S. maintain stable shipping lanes and stability in unstable regions.”
Surely, the reason the US is there is to prevent other nations such as China, Japan, controlling shipping lanes etc.
“I have to write this motherfucker Obama a check for several tens of thousands of dollars this year”
Time to take up Korean citizenship, and drop the US one
only one tax master then, and no more need to worry about US spending!!
@ gangpehmoderniste
“the answer is, it depends on how you bounce back from a depression, some countries react very quickly like Korea, some countries like America in the 30’s took longer but eventually emerged stronger than ever.”
What you describe as the “IMF noose” was its prescription of tight monetary policy, which also happens to be your prescription for Americans today. The prescription turned out to be the exact opposite of what should have been done. The Koreans ultimately loosened their monetary policy. Furthermore, the ROK would never have escaped the financial crisis without international interevention–especially in the form of massive loans to the Koreans.
The Great Depression lasted a long time because we suffered a double dip recession in 1937, just when it seemed we had recovered from 1929. This is the most important cautionary tale that applies to us today–more so than the debt and inflation concerns. The problem is, we do not really understand why 1937 occurred. Or maybe some people think they understand, but there is clearly no professional consensus on why it happened. As President, you have to go with your best advice. Clearly, he is going with the Keynesian solution because he must see the Keynesian explanation as the most probable explanation for 1937. I do not know who is right. But at least now, we will be able to guage whether the Keynesians have indeed the right explanation for 1937. Regardless, the President has given the current policy about a year before he bows to political and financial pressures and being tightening spending.
Worrying about how the government will wind down its stimulus when stimulus is required is shortsighted. This is because it does seem that governments do know when to pull back. The Koreans will do it twice in less than 15 years. The Americans clearly did it in the 30s during the recovery period before the 1937 recession. A stimulus package is just that, a package, which ultimately runs out of appropriated funds. And because of the nature of these funds–that we use them when we don’t have the money to use them–the public usually loathe these kinds of spending.
Finally, you ask whether I believe in the American people’s ability to bounce back. I do. I not only have faith in the people I know or work with, but I also have faith in myself. That is why I prefer averting Great Depression II. Instead of trying to reconstruct an imploded capitalist system, we exited the Great Recession last year and are now working to stop job loss. In effect, we have given ourselves a much better chance of recovering sooner than had we allowed Great Depression II to occur. That is why I support Keynesian policies during a recession.
I do not believe that we will experience Japan. Ultimately, the Japanese people decided to undergo decades of stagnation because they were unwilling to aggressively eject toxic assets from their banks or make the necessary changes in their laws, regulations, and customs. Our bankers and our government have been working creatively and furiously to relieve our banks of these bad loans. And the Obama administration is now setting the overhaul of our financial regulatory system on the top of its agenda.
I still would like an answer from you regarding whether you think Great Depression II would be preferable to stagnation. Because as I said, when our credit market nearly stopped functioning, I truly believe we were a whisper away from global financial apocalypse. I do believe that nearly everyone in Congress–congressional teabaggers included–and everyone in the White House also believe this, regardless of what they may say in public.
“America in the 30’s took longer but eventually emerged stronger than ever.”
not certain that another WW is the way to go to get out of the next depression
KrZ,
Yes. I play baduk. I am Amatuer 1-dan level.
61 gangpehmoderniste,
So WWI was between poor countries?
lollabrats: do i want my son to grow up in a world that looks like a giant Somalia to purge humanity out of their financial excesses ? I have to be honest and say the answer is NO
baduk: in today’s standards they were, when Europe got relatively prosperous (in the 1960′s of the previous century) a war became an unthinkable event.
@ gangpehmoderniste
(1) I think war in Europe is an unthinkable event today because of their experience in WWII and not because they became wealthy. Europeans and the Japanese are both in a phase in which they are weary of war because of their shame for having caused so much grief and because of the devastation they experienced as a result of that war. But that does not mean that they will remain this way.
The richest Europeans did fight over Europe for millenia. Prussia, Germany, England, Britain, Spain, Netherlands, Rome, Holy Roman Empire, the city-states of Italy, France, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire. They were definitely wealthy. And they definitely engaged in long-drawn massive wars against each other.
(2) I understand why Ron Paul has become such a popular figure lately. And I give him credit for one thing: unlike most politicians, he mostly says what he truly believes in. He really believes what he says about the nature and state of the American economy. And many people can readily see his sincerity and admire him for that. However, in my opinion, most of the things he believes in are not right.
I do think the Fed can be a powerful tool to protect our economy. Most people can now see that Alan Greenspan’s policies as the chairman did end up being disastrous for the world. However, Greenspan’s experience has given the world a very important lesson in what not to do as a central bank.
But we cannot ignore the fact that the world was able to quickly stabilize from near obliteration of the global financial system because of the coordianted responses of the central banks of the world. And I do think that their successful mitigation of the financial destruction shows how much we need an independent Fed.
And you already know that I am in favor of Keynesian responses to recession.
On the gold standard, I have not formed an opinion on it. I do fear that a return to it will unnecessarily price out the use of gold–a vital raw ingredient with many useful and unique properties–for consumer and scientific use.
Also, I do not take seriously his peculiar conspiracy theories on the manipulation of currency and the use of power in international relations.
However, I am very much in favor of a strong dollar. But I also recognize that maintaining a strong dollar may be very difficult to do for various reasons, which seemingly are too complex for even economists to really figure out. Every Congressman and President every year says that they want a strong dollar. But nobody has figured out how to really do it without disrupting our trade relations and internal economic growth.
You must log in to post a comment.