Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
See, I disagree with this, to the extent that it assumes that productivity exists in more places than just here. (In a relative sense, of course.)

I think we could do this. I think that we would end up bluffing them out and winning, but, if we had to, we could carry it off. They're not "financing" us. They're investing their currency in the only stable account. We own that bank.

Dude. There is not a factory owned by an American company that makes consumer electronics. There is not a single brassiere made in America. How would it benefit us to stick a thumb in evryone's eye, destroy their economies, and severely damage our own?

You seem to suggest that there would be some positive benefit to forcing everyone to recognize/believe that they live well only by "America's largesse". Even if that were true, I don't see a long term gain in highlighting it.

Plus, we don't want to have to pay for crappy cars produced by union wages with minimal competition. We've been there (roughly 1975-1985). Open markets and international competition are the best things that have ever happened to the consumer (taken in the aggregate).

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
We must have been going to different murder marches. I thought a large part of the compelling case against war was the quasi-criminal "innocent until proven guilty" standard of proof --- that you can't* invade a sovereign nation until you had the evidence the UN and Blix were looking for. "Let the inspections work" was a sincerely held belief, at least among My People. Then again, I hang out with rational people like Ty and Sidd who reserved the right to bust a cap in SH's ass if he held a nuke, and who reacted to Powell's UN speech with caveats like "if true." Shit, as I recall, some of us changed our position based on that speech, b/c of Powell's greater credibility among the left and the belief that while Bush can pound the tables with his core voters, he's not going to bluff the entire world community.

*Really, "shouldn't," as should be obvious by now.

Lots of them were much further out there. For example, our buddies at A.N.S.W.E.R.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
["appalling slander"]

For the record, it was a joke. I only vaguely recall the Kerrey Vietnam thing and was trying to characterize the GOP pundit's efforts to make Kerry eat it, not Kerrey's actions themselves. I have no ill will toward Kerrey, as I have never had a gun pointed at me and generally think that longhairs like me shouldn't blame individuals who are put into impossible situations like that.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
For the record, it was a joke. I only vaguely recall the Kerrey Vietnam thing and was trying to characterize the GOP pundit's efforts to make Kerry eat it, not Kerrey's actions themselves. I have no ill will toward Kerrey, as I have never had a gun pointed at me and generally think that longhairs like me shouldn't blame individuals who are put into impossible situations like that.

Good. Glad to hear you're not going off the deep end. Good night.

S_A_M

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Lots of them were much further out there. For example, our buddies at A.N.S.W.E.R.

ANSWER are kooks. I do not consider them representative of the left any more than Bilmore wants Opus Dei to speak for him.

They cannot claim that the entire pool attending their anti-war rallies subscribed to their agenda or reasons for opposing the war. They just happened to be the ones organizing the events. I can go to a Clear Channel venued concert without being in favor of them making a dime, but accidentally give the impression I want them on the face of the earth.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Deficits only matter when they reach critical mass as a percentage of GDP. Based on the OBM director's testimony yesterday (at least it was on CSPAN last night), our current deficits as a percentage of GDP are not even close to historical levels. In fact, they are slightly above where they were running under Clinton and roughly the same as under Reagan. Of course, this never gets parsed out in the DEMs discussion. Rather, they just yell and scream about the gross number without any context for it.*

You and I have traded posts about this before, and you are ignoring what I said before: "However, it turns out that that's true only if you disregard the Social Security surplus. Otherwise, we're at historical highs, and -- as sgtclub repeatedly observes -- that's without many of the tax cuts having kicked in yet." As you have pointed out, things will get much worse when those tax cuts do kick in.

Ty, you and I agree that we don't like the deficits under this president, but for different reasons. My reason is that I HATE big government and wasteful spending. You don't like wasteful spending and you also believe that the deficits are harming the economy. I think this latter point is wrong, but no one knows for sure.

*Same logic for taxes, cuts in spending, etc.

I don't think it's realistic to think that government is going to shrink much. You have a GOP President, a GOP Congress, and GOP courts. If it's ever going to happen, it's going to happen now, and instead government is getting larger. They talk your game, but they know that if they're going to get elected, they should spend. There's just no constituency for what you want. You're being used.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Then again, I hang out with rational people like Ty and Sidd who reserved the right to bust a cap in SH's ass if he held a nuke, and who reacted to Powell's UN speech with caveats like "if true."

I will understand if you think of this as after-the-fact rationalization, but I assure you that it has been in many minds for many years: So, you and Ty and Sidd were fine with the 10,000-30,000 people per year killed, some in shredders, as long as it didn't affect YOU?

Honorable.

I would certainly fight for SH's right to control "his" country. What interfering jackasses we are. (Well, not "we", as you want no part of this.)

[Dave]

Originally posted by bilmore
See, I disagree with this, to the extent that it assumes that productivity exists in more places than just here. (In a relative sense, of course.)

I think we could do this. I think that we would end up bluffing them out and winning, but, if we had to, we could carry it off. They're not "financing" us. They're investing their currency in the only stable account. We own that bank.

Have you been in a Wal-Mart lately? China owns us already and it's only going to get worse.

You call it like you see it, and I'll do the same. Even if we could do what you propose, would it be worth the cost? I don't think so. The world financial system is dependent on a fairly strong, stable dollar. Attempting to devalue the world's dominant currency would be a painful, chaotic and possibly fruitless affair. How are you going to break the fixed rate of the yuan to the dollar? China and Japan will be happy to 'counter-manage' our efforts in order to keep the exchange rates where they can live with them, and they've got a lot of dollar reserves to dump into the fray.

This is a battle we don't need. Exchange rates can be manipulated to our benefit to a sufficient extent without an abrupt devaluation. I can respect a certain amount of telling the rest of the world to fuck itself in foreign policy, but not at this level.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
I will understand if you think of this as after-the-fact rationalization, but I assure you that it has been in many minds for many years: So, you and Ty and Sidd were fine with the 10,000-30,000 people per year killed, some in shredders, as long as it didn't affect YOU?

Honorable.

I would certainly fight for SH's right to control "his" country. What interfering jackasses we are. (Well, not "we", as you want no part of this.)

Put those deaths around Donald Rumsfeld's neck and we'll talk.

[Hank Chinaski]

you should all go to sleep.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I will understand if you think of this as after-the-fact rationalization, but I assure you that it has been in many minds for many years: So, you and Ty and Sidd were fine with the 10,000-30,000 people per year killed, some in shredders, as long as it didn't affect YOU?

Honorable.

I would certainly fight for SH's right to control "his" country. What interfering jackasses we are. (Well, not "we", as you want no part of this.)

Larry Davis has debunked this idea that 10K-30K people were being killed a year. I won't speak for Atticus and Sidd, but my reluctance to invade was based on a conservative view about the limits of our power and unforeseen downsides, not on comfort with human misery in Iraq. There's a lot of human misery in Haiti --- should we embark on nation building there, too? Conservatives usually say "no."

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Dude. There is not a factory owned by an American company that makes consumer electronics. There is not a single brassiere made in America. How would it benefit us to stick a thumb in evryone's eye, destroy their economies, and severely damage our own?

And every single one of these "productivities" depend on American consumers, the only ones, really, who can afford mass purchase of the items you have named. (I suppose that, in a pinch, they could sell their bras and subwoofers to Sudan, right?) And, for about 20% more, we could buy domestic (in three years.) And, having done this, maybe the rest of the world stops thweir push for the American version of entitlement, and instead goes for value. For what rational reason does someone demand money for nothing? Only because we have, historically, rewarded such a demand. The countries that have responded rationally to this impulse have done well. The countries that just say "you owe us, as you have more", have never developed. Capitalism = Darwinism. Socialism = USSR. (Remember them?)

You seem to suggest that there would be some positive benefit to forcing everyone to recognize/believe that they live well only by "America's largesse". Even if that were true, I don't see a long term gain in highlighting it.

And there is the crux of our paradigmal contrast.

Plus, we don't want to have to pay for crappy cars produced by union wages with minimal competition. We've been there (roughly 1975-1985). Open markets and international competition are the best things that have ever happened to the consumer (taken in the aggregate).

Five years to fix this, with the right impetus.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
For the record, it was a joke. I only vaguely recall the Kerrey Vietnam thing . . .

Thank you for the explanation of your objections. Weighty.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Larry Davis has debunked this idea that 10K-30K people were being killed a year. I won't speak for Atticus and Sidd, but my reluctance to invade was based on a conservative view about the limits of our power and unforeseen downsides, not on comfort with human misery in Iraq. There's a lot of human misery in Haiti --- should we embark on nation building there, too? Conservatives usually say "no."

Ty has my chit on this one. (Psst. Ty. Who's Larry Davis?)

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Thank you for the explanation of your objections. Weighty.

Huh? Help a brother out. I can't tell if I should go to bed mad or not.