The American Nightmare: No Exit, No Entry

re the article hp posted:

reminds me of the book dow 36,000 published in 1999, the height of u.s. bull market, by another set of experts following ideology rather than facts. below is from a book review on dow 36,000 in businessweek. pay special attention to background of the authors. in case anyone needs reminding, the ``institutes`` these ``scholars`` represent also bought you the iraq war:

http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_39/b3648125.htm

``...Actually, conditions don`t have to get a lot better to justify Dow 36,000, say James K. Glassman and Kevin A. Hassett in Dow 36,000: The New Strategy for Profiting From the Coming Rise in the Stock Market. They argue that the market already merits 36K, and that stock prices will advance toward that target over the next 3 to 5 years as investors come to that conclusion, too.

...Glassman, a Washington Post columnist and fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and Hassett, an economist and resident scholar at the AEI, first put forth their bold thesis in a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece last year....``

regarding the foreign affairs article, it is like the book dow 36,000, written by people who (i) dont have practical financial markets experience (ii) are using ideology rather than facts to justify their claims. in fact the basic premise of their article is incorrect. no serious economist or market professional argues that u.s. is going to stop being the big dog anytime soon. instead long term structural trade and budget deficits are of concern because they will lead to (i) gradual loss of u.s. control over critical economic tools such as exchange and interest rates (ii) decline in u.s. competitiveness vis-a-vis rest of the world.

there are signs that point (i) mentioned above is starting to happen. for the last two years the fed is raising rates in part to lower inflation in general and housing price inflation in particular. in response to the fed moves, short term rates have risen as desired by the fed. long term rates however have behaved in an entirely different manner. the structure of the yield curve now is causing some serious concern in the financial market:

http://today.reuters.com/business/newsarticle.aspx?type=tnBusinessNews&storyID=nN29196014

When yield curve talks, Wall St economists listen
Tuesday 29 November 2005, 12:57pm EST

NEW YORK, Nov 29 (Reuters) - Short-term interest rates are at the cusp of surpassing their long-term counterparts in the United States, and many analysts are already squirming in their chairs as they worry about an economic slowdown.

..In particular, they maintain, excess savings abroad coupled with strong foreign interest in U.S. assets has artificially depressed long-term interest rates.

...Number one on a laundry list of economic pitfalls is the housing market, where a relentless boom has prompted many to worry about a price bubble.

...And there are other sources of anxiety. Among them is an ever widening trade deficit, which many fear could prompt a sharp decline in the dollar sometime in the next couple of years, making U.S. investments less attractive to foreigners...``

the author of foreign affairs article also make a couple of basic mistakes fundemental one being that past represents the future i.e. u.s. will be the top dog forever because it was top dog in the past. btw past does not represent is the first advice any solid market professional will give you.

also their comments on u.s. investments abroad vs. foreigners investing in the u.s. defeats their own argument. foreigners invest in the u.s. largely because of low risk. americans otoh invest abroad for growth. that in itself should tell you how the markets think about the future.

#235 Romair

It`s hard to be humble when you live in a great country :).

# 244 HP

Thanks for the article. Problems are manageble.

#236 by SaimaShah
I was going to respond to your post but then I saw this great article that deals with doomsayers and your contentions. So read this. I will post my own views on this too.

The Overstretch Myth
David H. Levey and Stuart S. Brown

Summary: The United States` current account deficit and foreign debt are not dire threats to its global position, as would-be Cassandras warn. U.S. power is firmly grounded on economic superiority and financial stability that will not end soon.


Would-be Cassandras have been predicting the imminent downfall of the American imperium ever since its inception. First came Sputnik and ``the missile gap,`` followed by Vietnam, Soviet nuclear parity, and the Japanese economic challenge--a cascade of decline encapsulated by Yale historian Paul Kennedy`s 1987 ``overstretch`` thesis.

The resurgence of U.S. economic and political power in the 1990s momentarily put such fears to rest. But recently, a new threat to the sustainability of U.S. hegemony has emerged: excessive dependence on foreign capital and growing foreign debt. As former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers has said, ``there is something odd about the world`s greatest power being the world`s greatest debtor.``

The U.S. economy, according to doubters, rests on an unsustainable accumulation of foreign debt. Fueled by government profligacy and low private savings rates, the current account deficit--the difference between what U.S. residents spend abroad and what they earn abroad in a year--now stands at almost six percent of GDP; total net foreign liabilities are approaching a quarter of GDP. Sudden unwillingness by investors abroad to continue adding to their already large dollar assets, in this scenario, would set off a panic, causing the dollar to tank, interest rates to skyrocket, and the U.S. economy to descend into crisis, dragging the rest of the world down with it.

Despite the persistence and pervasiveness of this doomsday prophecy, U.S. hegemony is in reality solidly grounded: it rests on an economy that is continually extending its lead in the innovation and application of new technology, ensuring its continued appeal for foreign central banks and private investors. The dollar`s role as the global monetary standard is not threatened, and the risk to U.S. financial stability posed by large foreign liabilities has been exaggerated. To be sure, the economy will at some point have to adjust to a decline in the dollar and a rise in interest rates. But these trends will at worst slow the growth of U.S. consumers` standard of living, not undermine the United States` role as global pacesetter. If anything, the world`s appetite for U.S. assets bolsters U.S. predominance rather than undermines it.


Discussion of the United States` ``net foreign debt`` conjures up images of countries such as Argentina, Brazil, and Turkey, evoking the currency collapses and economic crises they have suffered as models for a coming U.S. meltdown. There are key differences, however, between those emerging-market cases and the current condition of the global hegemon. The United States` external liabilities are denominated in its own currency, which remains the global monetary standard, and its economy remains on the frontier of global technological innovation, attracting foreign capital as well as immigrant labor with its rapid growth and the high returns it generates for investors.

The statistic at the center of the foreign debt debate is the net international investment position (NIIP), the value of foreign assets owned by U.S. residents minus the value of U.S. assets owned by nonresidents. Until 1989, the United States was a creditor to the rest of the world; the NIIP peaked at almost 13 percent of GDP in 1980. But chronic current account deficits ever since have given the United States the largest net liabilities in world history. Since foreign claims on the United States ($10.5 trillion) exceed U.S. claims abroad ($7.9 trillion), the NIIP is now negative: -$2.6 trillion at the start of 2004, or -24 percent of GDP.

Unpacking the NIIP gives a better sense of the risk it actually poses. It has two components: direct investment, the value of domestic operations directly controlled by a foreign company; and financial liabilities, the value of stocks, bonds, and bank deposits held overseas. At the start of 2004, foreign direct investment in the United States was $2.4 trillion, while U.S. direct investment abroad was about $2.7 trillion. (Direct investment is relatively stable, changing mostly in response to changes in expected long-term profitability.) Removing direct investment from the equation leaves $5.1 trillion in U.S.-held foreign financial assets versus $8.1 trillion in U.S. financial assets held by foreign investors.

This last figure represents a whopping 74 percent of U.S. GDP--a statistic that would seem to give ample cause for alarm. But considering foreign ownership of U.S. financial assets as a percentage of GDP is less enlightening than comparing it to the total available stock of U.S. financial assets. At the start of 2004, total U.S. securities amounted to $33.4 trillion (some 50 percent of the world total). Foreign investors held more than 38 percent of the $4 trillion in U.S. Treasury bonds, but only 11 percent of the $6.1 trillion in agency bonds (such as those issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac); 23 percent of the $6.5 trillion in corporate bonds; and 11 percent of the $15.5 trillion in equities outstanding. These foreign liabilities are the result of a string of current account deficits that have grown from 1.5 percent of GDP in the mid-1990s to an estimated 5.7 percent of GDP--about $650 billion--in 2004. Economists at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimate that ongoing deficits of 3 percent of GDP would bring the U.S. NIIP to -40 percent of GDP by 2010, and that it would eventually stabilize at around -63 percent. If the deficit remains at today`s level, they foresee the NIIP growing to -50 percent of GDP by 2010 and eventually to -100 percent.

These estimates, however, fail to consider that future dollar depreciation and market adjustments in interest rates and asset prices will likely check the increase of the NIIP. Dollar depreciation against the euro and the yen in 2002 and 2003 kept the NIIP flat despite large current account deficits. The same result is likely for 2004 (final numbers will not be available until the end of June). Thus, although the NIIP will surely continue to grow for many years to come, its increase will be far less dramatic than many economists fear.

Read complete article here…
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050301facomment84201/david-h-levey-stuart-s-brown/the-overstretch-myth.html

Raw_Dust #240: ``Romair:
but you are a loyal subject of someone who enslaved your forefathers and here you are at it again - you willingly have chosen to be the subject of the same entity...

admit it man... :-) ``

Yes. You are correct. I`ll have to give you that one. I personally think Canadians should kick the queen out. Even the oath of citizenship is to the queen, for some reason. But as long as all Canadians are enslaved to her, its ok..........

Added to this, I still believe Pakistan should have allowed the goras to rule over it for 30 more years. We would have been like Hong Kong, by now............So being ruled by goras is not that bad. That is how God designed the world. Goras rule and the rest of us become the labor.........

In any case, in 25 years, South Asians and Chinese will have taken over Canada. Or at least taken over, all important places like Toronto and Vancouver. At which time the standard of living in Canada will automatically decrease. And in 50 years, Mexicans will have taken over USA, decreasing the standard of living there, as well.......

By that time, I will have moved to New Zealand............which is also, under the queen.........

Long live the Queen!!!

Re: # 241

>>>Being on page 17 of a newspaper is more a sign of the newspaper`s ignorance than anything else.<<<

Romair Sir Ji… being on page A-17 means there are other more important news that are on earlier pages. In all honesty, no one in the world is worried about the Canadian no-confidence vote, while Clinton’s cigar makes covers of the newspapers the world over. Monika is more famous than Paul Martin. You see the difference?

Here’s a list of 10 famous Canadians:

1. OK, I will have to get back to you on that one.

And yeah, I agree with you, DullahBhatti indeed is a class into himself.

Kulharee #239: ``Romair Ji, I know DullahBhatti, and Sir let me tell you that you are no DullahBhatti – however I think that you will make a fabulous Queen of Canada.``

Yes, that is true. Bhatti Saab is, indeed, in a class of his own.........Suppose I do become the queen of Canada, wouldn`t that still mean that you cannot become the President of the USA?

``Sir, please don’t try to put down Americans. Thanks.``

You may want to get out of the habit of considering any critique of the USA to be a, ``put down.`` Do keep in mind that the USA publishes an annual reports on human rights and God knows what else, about every country in the world. Don`t you think that makes it OK for others to critique the USA; especially since the USA is intruding in so many countries` business. Not the mention the fact that there are still Americans who think that other countries will miss US soldiers, when they vacate their lands!........

Being on page 17 of a newspaper is more a sign of the newspaper`s ignorance than anything else. As I said, lack of information and knowledge about others is a bad thing. Not something to be proud of.............In any case, ignorance is bliss is a philosophy that is popular..........

Romair:
but you are a loyal subject of someone who enslaved your forefathers and here you are at it again - you willingly have chosen to be the subject of the same entity...

admit it man... :-)

Re: # 238

>>>> ``makes page A-17 of the NYTimes here`` This is a major problem in the USA, i.e. lack of information about other countries. It keeps people ignorant. Ignorance is a bad thing..........<<<<

Romair Bhaijan, that’s just not true. NYTimes first 16 pages of full of International News (I don’t think that I need to list it, but here’s a sample – Nigerian leader fleas; Egyptian Elections; Iraq; Korean Scientist; Mexico’s Charter; Syria UN; even news from Wales; VZ; Honduras; Columbia; China; Pakistan; Myanmar; Russia; Uganda; Kenya…. Just a little sample from today’s NYTimes. plus 3 international editorials, and 4 essays) And Sir the American are not as ignorant as some people will make you believe.

Sir, please don’t try to put down Americans. Thanks.


>>>>So who knows, one fine day, either me or DullahBhatti - two Punjabi speaking immigrants - may be the Governor General of Canada. What chances do you have of being the President of the USA? Do let me know......<<<<

Romair Ji, I know DullahBhatti, and Sir let me tell you that you are no DullahBhatti – however I think that you will make a fabulous Queen of Canada.

Kulharee #237: ``I read somewhere that Canadians are more aware of the American politics than their own. I am totally amazed that you Canadians know so much about the US whereas a major event in your country``

I know about the USA because I lived there for a long time. Canadians know far more about the USA, then the USA knows about Canada. Canadians know far more about the UK then the UK knows about Canada. Knowing something is a good thing. Not knowing something is a bad thing; not something to be proud of............

``makes page A-17 of the NYTimes here``

This is a major problem in the USA, i.e. lack of information about other countries. It keeps people ignorant. Ignorance is a bad thing..........

``having no global position in terms of economic power, or just plain envy?``

Canada is a member of the G-7, so I would not call that, ``no global position.`` And has been rated the best place to live in the world by the UN, for seven straight years.......So I wouldn`t call it envy either..........

``Do you know that Queen of England is your head of State?``

Yes, this is true. It is done deliberately. She could be kicked out, as and when wanted. Being in the Commonwealth has some advantages. Do keep in mind that the Governor General of Canada (the practical head of state) is a Black 48 year old lady named Michaelle Jean. She is a French speaking immigrant, who fleed from Haiti, currently living in Quebec!

So who knows, one fine day, either me or DullahBhatti - two Punjabi speaking immigrants - may be the Governor General of Canada. What chances do you have of being the President of the USA? Do let me know......

Re: # 234

Romair Sahib, I read somewhere that Canadians are more aware of the American politics than their own. I am totally amazed that you Canadians know so much about the US whereas a major event in your country (no-confidence vote) makes page A-17 of the NYTimes here. Why do you think that that’s the case? Is it due to Canada being insignificant and inconsequential in the world affairs, having no global position in terms of economic power, or just plain envy? I tend to believe it is the envy first and the other stuff last. It’s not just Canada but most of the world (as you rightly put) that wishes it had only a little piece of what USA has. Do you know that Queen of England is your head of State? Well, you can thank me if you didn’t know that.

I read Der Spiegel and Le-Monde articles in the WPReview. While France burns, it still is worried about race relations in America; while there is 14% unemployment in Germany, it is worried about US economy and War in Iraq and also about Hurricane Katrina. I mean at what point do you say that enough is enough?

Re: # 226

Consumer spending is 67% of US GDP. US trade deficit quite clearly means that the US under Greenspan has ignored the future over consumption today. US has a net negative savings rate with underreported inflation rate (see Bill Gross). Outstanding Public Debt as of 28Nov2005 is over 8trillion. See the book, ‘The Empire of Debt.’ Yes, the US is technically bankrupt.

The estimated population of the United States is 297,826,574 so each citizen`s share of this debt is $27,253.87. This is the amount that each American has to earn above earnings to feed and clothe him or her to eventually pay it off. At a per capita income of 40k per year and an income that has been static for the last several years with an increasingly poor population, I don’t see it happening too fast.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of $3.14 billion per day since September 30, 2005. Funnily, in news reports (CNN) you will see that the economy has done extremely well--grown at 8% this quarter. If you look elsewhere you will see that analysts are quite skeptical of these numbers and if you dig deeper you will realise that these numbers are quite misleading in the assumptions that they make (Bill Gross, October 2004). Concern about debt is labelled Left and therefore irrelevant to American progress.

Let’s put this in perspective. Every Republican govt., increases debt. Every democratic govt., decreases debt. There are all sorts of analysis that Americans need to make on what this means.

About spending. There are several reasons why spending doesn’t translate to increasing incomes 1. Since consumer spending is increasingly financed through debt, debt is simply a promise to pay in future, debt repayment eventually goes to finance companies who may or may not invest in US 2.The goods purchased are produced elsewhere, spending does not translate into production within US leading to lower incomes (). There are ramifications to all this. 3. Taxes on consumer spending go into defense rather than investing in people. 4. Dwindling tax base

The other issue about 4 million jobs going overseas—I doubt that America had the requisite skills to do those jobs. And the real question is why doesn’t America invest in people-and/or why doesn’t it increase immigration when the population skill levels fall short. If you look at the policies of the present empire, you can see that the government is reducing the support system for the population—removing incentives such as medicaid, social security and ways out such as abortion. As a result, there will be increased pressure on women to marry, produce children and stay under-educated. Similarly since the cost of a university education has risen more than the inflation per se, it means that fewer Americans will be able to afford a college education.

State of the deficit is such that it seems the world is paying US to buy goods from it. If this continues more countries might decide not to peg to the USD. If the USD loses its status as the currency needed for trade--well then—there may be a crisis within America. The real question is ‘Can the World Do Without the American Dollar.’ (HP’s question about why do other countries buy US Tbills—is explained by the status of the US dollar in the world economy—this has been pointed out by many experts and references are easy to find as to why other countries buy Tbills—politics and history plus peg currency but the point is what is the incentive for them to continue to buy?). A scenario where the US dollar is no longer used as peg currency would probably take 5 years or hopefully take 5 years--according to which financial analyst you talk to.

It further proves the hypothesis that there is significant propaganda hijacking information in US. There are stereotypes floating around; All naysayers are lazy ass, overly worried, pessimistic, academic types, greenpeace, gay or unreal Americans. The real American is hardworking, to the point, well dressed, (not a geek) and always optimistic, who somehow outsmarts all the smart ones (see teen TV to verify). Today`s media is so image laden, so deeply invasive of our minds, that it is propaganda--a cut above being infotainment. There are very few ‘independent’ newspapers left.

Ok, so is there a game plan or not? Does the government know what it is doing or not? What is really driving them to pursue these policies? IMHO, born again christainity.

Pardesi #233: ``I can promise you when our troops come back home and give up this world cop role, the world is going to miss us.``

Could it be that this is the kind of thinking that has gotten the USA into the varoius messes it is in, internationally. There isn`t a country in the world, other than Israel, where George Bush can go and even make a speech without facing all kinds of opposition. Just look at what happened on his tour to South America and China. Not to mention in the UK..........He got the same treatment in Canada........

It is one thing to assume that one`s sh//t doesn`t stink. But, I think when one starts thinking that people are even going to, ``miss`` one`s military actions, one has gone a bit too far in self-aggrandization.

I think the Americans are completely naive about the way they are being viewed by the rest of the world; including the Western world...........The USA needs a serious rethink of its policies.........at the top of this list is economic affairs and foreign affairs. The former is a local matter, but the later affects a lot of countries, and costs a lot of lives..........

I think the recent defeat in Iraq is slowly starting to put the wheels in motion, regarding this rethink............Rest assured, when the US troops come home, everyone will take a breath of relief. They will not be missed...........

Kulharee #232: ``Now that the liberals are out, I think the right wing Nazis and the fascists will take over and will make life more miserable for the Immigrants who are not happy there to begin with.``

I think the chances of this happening are next to nill.

Much like the US society and politics is leaning heavily to the conservative side, Canadian politics and society is leaning heavily to the liberal side. According to Pew Research 45% of the Americans want religion in their govt. (i.e. they are openly against secularism). 2 out of 3 considers him/herself to be conservative. 42% consider themselves to be the members of the Christian Right. And 23% of the registered voters consider themselves to be outright Christian Evangelicals.

This 23% group is now the most powerful political force in the USA. More powerful than the, otherwise, two most powerful forces - NRA and AIPAC. No one can get a Republican nomination without the supporf of the Evangelicals. This is how a nincumpoop like Bush beat out a more competent and balancced McCain. And a nincumpoop like Cheney survived, even after blundering in Iraq, while a more balanced, but less ideological Colin Powell was kicked out.

The above, combined with the fact that 66% of the country is conservative, ensures that the Evangelicals and the religious right, have the deciding vote in who becomes the President of the USA (not to mention who ends up on the Supreme Court). Had Bush not been elected and blundered hugely, the Religious Right was set to rule the USA for the next few decades..........Liberal is still considered a four lettered word in US politics........

Nothing wrong with that, since that is what Americans want............

Canada is going in the opposite direction. For starters, there are four major political parties at the federal level - NDP, Bloc Quebecois, Liberal and Conservative. Three out of these four are liberal parties. NDP is extremely liberal. One cannot get a seat from them, until one openly declares one supports gay marriage and abortion. Bloc Quebecois is a Left Wing party, which is pro-Quebec (and anti-US). Liberal party, is, well, as the name suggests, liberal. The Conservative party being the only conservative force, and even it would considered liberal had it been in US politics.

All four of these parties are pro-immigration. The fifth, tiny Green Party, is also pro-immigration. There isn`t a single anti-immigration force in Canada! They just support it in varying quantities. But they all support it.......

As for Nazism coming into Canada, I certainly cannot see it. At the moment, the Liberal party is at its lowest. Its involved in a huge corruption scandal. It was divided down the middle by an internal squabble. It`s govt. fell yesterday, in a historical vote. It has been in power for more than a decade and is getting stale.

Yet it still leads in the polls for the next election!! And the % support for the Conservative party in Canada, even in such a situation is still only 30%! So Canada`s problem is not going to be fascists taking over. It will be too many liberal forces taking over.............Much like USA`s problem will be the Relgious Right taking over (it has already taken over)............

# 222 SR

As you know, we are dealing with a very emotional topic here. We are not debating the challenges that we face. In fact I can add more items to your list. The issue is will US come out limping, or better and stronger out of this mess. Some of us here feel that we all will be alright. Will it cause lots of pain – yes.

BTW, our “12 aircraft carrier group” is protecting South Koreans and Taiwanese, has assisted Muslims from Bosnia, and liberated Kuwait and Iraqi Shias/Kurds. Not bad record :). I can promise you when our troops come back home and give up this world cop role, the world is going to miss us. Japanese will build up to match Chinese, China will grab Taiwan, India and Pakistan will be fighting real war rather than unending Mickey mouse games, Israel and Arabs will really destroy each other etc. etc. It will not be a pretty place.

I am sure we will continue this debate over another board.

Meanwhile, I wish you and your family very happy holidays.

I am so sad for my Canadian buddies. Yesterday, their Government collapsed and it made a page 9 news in the New York Times (Poland makes page 1). Lucky for them, I get 10 international newspapers at work including International Herald Tribune, and it was page 6 news in that. It`s so sad that while the whole of Canada is fukd up beyond repair but the morons living there are more concerned about the United States than their own fukd up country.

Now that the liberals are out, I think the right wing Nazis and the fascists will take over and will make life more miserable for the Immigrants who are not happy there to begin with. That means more Canadians coming over to the US to work illegally and flashing their mediocre degrees in our faces. Oh well. Who gives a shyt?

Re: # 229 HP

{...“The present financial situation of the US is that of technical insolvency.” -- SR

Are you kidding me? Technical insolvency? Where did you go to school?...``}

You mind is obviously made up already... so I must not confuse you with facts. Please continue to live in you-know-whose paradise.

...SR

PS: Since you seem to be keen to make this announcement, please do declare the name of the ``top notch`` US school that you obviously seem to have attended and want to brag about... Princeton? Harvard? Yale? Stanford? Northwestern? Pray, tell us which???

#228 by baggarbilla

The Canadian government has pulled a hoax on unsuspecting immigrants. It pains me to see some highly qualified people, who were given immigration on the bases of their qualifications, are forced to drive cabs and do odd jobs in Wal-Mart and other joints like that in Toronto and many other cities.
These people burned their life savings, gave up good jobs and now they are filling the odd jobs requirements for the Canadian businesses.
I think the immigrants should sue the Canadian government for misleading and pulling a fraud on them. What a pity…

#227 by SR

You are an interesting man with a literal mind! I tried to make it simple for you and you come back with this…

“why then would there have been the need to go in debt in order to attract foreign capital to the tune of almost $2 Billion a DAY… ??”

Is the US forcing any country to buy the treasury bonds? And why the foreign capital is invested to the tune of 2 billion a day, if the investment is not good…Actually foreigners buying the bonds shows the strength of the US economy and not a weakness.

“GM in this case..They are content to rest on their laurels instead of reinventing themselves. They’ve become too big and unadaptable.”

If some company is not following good business practices then how is that US governments fault? You want the US government to run the corporations too? I just love the way you present ideas na koi sar na koi paer.

“The present financial situation of the US is that of technical insolvency.”

Are you kidding me? Technical insolvency? Where did you go to school?

“That is four million fewer W2s and thus four million fewer 1040s. The Federation is ultimately eroding its tax base.”

First you lament that enough people are not coming to the US, when I pointed out the reason for people not coming in- you start to lament the loss of 4 million jobs and tax base…What is your real point…any country that can send 4 millions job to the poor countries and help them out, imo, is not doing badly at all. Further, a loss of tax base…where is that? Do we even know the unemployment numbers in the US?

Still, there is lots of room to cut taxes and spending and that is the problem that the Bush admin is not taking care of.

The US needs to bring its defense and Iraq related expenses in line. It needs to cut lots of pork and that can be done with this admin or with the next admin. The US is not nearing doom that you make it out to be.

Now I can fully understand why you don’t wanna live in the US…I see where the disconnect is…

To all the Interactors! especially Kulharee

Being a Canadian myself, and now working in US because all that Multiculturism BS that Canada talks about is actually to maintain an aging infrastructure on Immigrant influx, Who are forced to toll in ODD JOBS day in and day out, regardless of Advance Degrees you get from Canadian institutions. A simple economics question to Saima, How can a country with a meagre population of 32 Million and equally meagre economy can possibly accomodate 2,50,000 Skilled Immigrants each year? What`s the point in celebrating Canadian Multiculturism when all it means is that you are condemned to a Odd job life for really really long and pehaps perpetually?

#226 by HP

{“… you are putting forward contradictory statements… see the gaps in your thought process…

…you contradict yourself … if you don’t spend money how you are going to build new businesses, New factories and new and better products. All of these come from spending and not saving…”}

Dear HP … Your enthusiasm is refreshing and your arrogance is amusing. If you look carefully, you’ll see that your argument is quite charged with emotion though lacing in depth. You simply misinterpret terminology. I was referring to consumer spending. This is quite distinct from capital spending or capital investment. The two are not synonymous.


{“… what is the point of building better automobiles when there is no one willing to spend money to buy them?...

…you are trying to mix differing economic thoughts under one roof and that too with some really simplistic explanations. …”}

Here again, you are quick to cast stones at others while unconcerned of your own glass house.

The point on offer was that a major US company, GM in this case, was a reflection of the malaise and arrogance that seems to have taken hold of many US institutions. They are content to rest on their laurels instead of reinventing themselves. They’ve become too big and unadaptable. This phenomenon has given foreign competators an edge. Toyota, for example, has been having GM’s lunch for a number of years and what has GM done to recapture market share? Zilch… You, of course, did not get the drift so you start off firing from the hip. I admire the spark in your spirit though its not always conducive to a mature exchange of ideas.

{“…The US savings rate is appropriate for most the capital needs of the country. }

Please refrain from making such platitudes. If this were true, why then would there have been the need to go in debt in order to attract foreign capital to the tune of almost $2 Billion a DAY… ??

{“…There has never been a shortage of capital in the US due to lack of savings to support the capital needs. …”}

If someone with your discussion style looks at this statement and compares it to the one immediately above, he would scream “…self-contradiction… self-contradiction…” And would hastily add that in the first sentence you claim that “US savings rate is appropriate” for the country’s ”capital needs” and then you mention ”lack of savings” in the next sentence. Please understand that I do not want to be engaged in this sort of a childish argument, just for the sake of argument.

The present financial situation of the US is that of technical insolvency.

Nonetheless, the US has had the unique advantage of owning a national currency that has been the de facto reserve currency of world trade. That situation, however, is gradually changing and the writing is on the wall for all to see. But of course, one does not have to see it. Closing one’s eyes to facts is quite a common response.

{“…If we consider Social Security as yet another savings vehicle then you will be surprised at the percentage of savings to sustain any capital requirement.

If only the social security is moved into financial system instead of supporting the Federal Budgets, the US savings rates would be astronomical. …”}

Now this is beyond fiction. It is bordering on fantasy.

Go ask Paul O’Neil, the former Treasury Secretary. He got fired because he angered Bush when he wanted to add the results of the government study into the 2004 budget document, showing that the projected Social Security shortfalls were in the TENS of $ TRILLIONS

{“ … it had happened many times in the history…These are part of the economic cycles and often bad policies by the a given admin. This trend is reversable. A few years of effort would change that…”}

I cannot address this point. No one argue against FAITH …

{“…Do you know how many jobs the US outsourced to turn the tide of immigration to the US in the last three or four years?

Yes, I do know that awful number. It’s well over four million.

That is four million fewer W2s and thus four million fewer 1040s. The Federation is ultimately eroding its tax base.

In the long run it may prove to be a blessing when the 12 aircraft carrier groups floating around the world become harder and harder to finance.

225 by faisaluno

Thank you. I hope some of our friends here will read it.

…SR

#222 by SR

“As the author of the article points out, consumer spending cannot make people rich; instead, it makes them poor. You don’t get rich by spending; you get rich by saving…and building new businesses, new factories, and new and better products. You get rich by foregoing consumption in favor of production - so you can produce better automobiles, for example, than your competitors. But the United States has done just the opposite. It consumes…and allows its competitors to invest and produce. Where do you think this might lead the US?”

I really have no opinion on your decision to leave the country… But I do think that you are putting forward contradictory statements to prove you point. I hope some day you will be able to see the gaps in your thought process…

Your write, “consumer spending cannot make people rich;” then you contradict yourself by claiming this “you get rich by saving…and building new businesses, new factories, and new and better products” Please if you don’t spend money how you are going to build new businesses, New factories and new and better products. All of these come from spending and not saving. Now please tell me what is the point of building better automobiles when there is no one willing to spend money to buy them?

It appears to me that you are trying to mix differing economic thoughts under one roof and that too with some really simplistic explanations. The US savings rate is appropriate for mostthe capital needs of the country. There has never been a shortage of capital in the US due to lack of savings to support the capital needs.
If we consider Social Security as yet another savings vehicle then you will be surprised at the percentage of savings to sustain any capital requirement. I hope you know how much an average taxpayer contributes to the SS and what employers’ contributions are. If only the social security is moved into financial system instead of supporting the Federal Budgets, the US savings rates would be astronomical.

“so you can produce better automobiles, for example, than your competitors. But the United States has done just the opposite.”

The consumer in the US provides incentive to the foreign manufacturers to produce a better product or the foreign competitor would never be able to get a share of the market. That should be to the credit of the US consumer. This fact should not be used to hit the consumer in the head to stop spending their money wisely.

“In 1980, the US was still the world’s largest creditor. By 1985 it had become a net debtor. This trend accelerated under Greenspan. Since Alan Greenspan took office on Aug. 11, 1987:”

Interesting thought…do you recall that before 1980 US was a creditor nation and it had happened many times in the history…These are part of the economic cycles and often bad policies by the a given admin. This trend is reversable. A few years of effort would change that.

“2004 was also a watershed year. For 63 years the USA was like a magnet, attracting the world’s best “brains” to its shores. There was a net brain-gain, year after year, for 63 years. That, tragically, changed for the first time in 2004. For the first time in over six decades there was a net brain-drain from the US.”

I find this factoid amusing…Do you know how many jobs the US outsourced to turn the tide of immigration to the US in the last three or four years? Did you know that US is not accepting as many professionals on H1 and other visas and sending jobs outside for exactly the same professionals that it was importing before 2002?

I hope you would look at the numbers in the right context before putting them forward as some sort of decline in the US standards.

``I believe because the USA has become the USSA (insert the extra “S” for Soviet)… Government of the Corporations, by the Corporations, for the Corporations. (The term fascist is more appropriate, but Soviet rhymes better and invokes the image.)``

I hope you can support this with real facts and numbers instead of just your “belief and faith”.

“Many of us desi-babus are literalists. Another word for this is fundamentalists.” –SR

I agreed with your assertion and I don’t find you any different...

interestingly enough, paul krugman in his last two columns has touched on some of the issues bought up here. his column from nytimes is pasted below in entirety for folks who dont have access to nytimes:

November 28, 2005
Op-Ed Columnist
Age of Anxiety
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Many eulogies were published following the recent death of Peter Drucker, the great management theorist. I was surprised, however, that few of these eulogies mentioned his book ``The Age of Discontinuity,`` a prophetic work that speaks directly to today`s business headlines and economic anxieties.

Mr. Drucker wrote ``The Age of Discontinuity`` in the late 1960`s, a time when most people assumed that the big corporations of the day, companies like General Motors and U.S. Steel, would dominate the economy for the foreseeable future. He argued that this assumption was all wrong.

It was true, he acknowledged, that the dominant industries and corporations of 1968 were pretty much the same as the dominant industries and corporations of 1945, and for that matter of decades earlier. ``The economic growth of the last twenty years,`` he wrote, ``has been very fast. But it has been carried largely by industries that were already `big business` before World War I. ... Every one of the great nineteenth-century innovations gave birth, almost overnight, to a major new industry and to new big businesses. These are still the major industries and big businesses of today.``

But all of that, said Mr. Drucker, was about to change. New technologies would usher in an era of ``turbulence`` like that of the half-century before World War I, and the dominance of the major industries and big businesses of 1968 would soon come to an end.

He was right. Consider, for example, what happened to America`s steel industry. In the 1960`s, steel production was virtually synonymous with economic might, as it had been for almost a century. But although the U.S. economy as a whole created lots of wealth and tens of millions of jobs between 1968 and 2000, employment in the U.S. steel industry fell 60 percent.

And as industries went, so did corporations. Many of the corporate giants of the 1960`s, companies whose pre-eminence seemed permanent, have fallen on hard times, their places in the business hierarchy taken by new players. General Motors is only the most famous example.

So what? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss: why does it matter if the list of leading corporations turns over every couple of decades, as long as the total number of jobs continues to grow?

The answer is the reason Mr. Drucker`s old book is so relevant to today`s headlines: corporations can`t provide their workers with economic security if the companies` own future is highly insecure.

American workers at big companies used to think they had made a deal. They would be loyal to their employers, and the companies in turn would be loyal to them, guaranteeing job security, health care and a dignified retirement.

Such deals were, in a real sense, the basis of America`s postwar social order. We like to think of ourselves as rugged individualists, not like those coddled Europeans with their oversized welfare states. But as Jacob Hacker of Yale points out in his book ``The Divided Welfare State,`` if you add in corporate spending on health care and pensions - spending that is both regulated by the government and subsidized by tax breaks - we actually have a welfare state that`s about as large relative to our economy as those of other advanced countries.

The resulting system is imperfect: those who don`t work for companies with good benefits are, in effect, second-class citizens. Still, the system more or less worked for several decades after World War II.

Now, however, deals are being broken and the system is failing. Remember, Delphi was once part of General Motors, and its workers thought they were totally secure.

What went wrong? An important part of the answer is that America`s semi-privatized welfare state worked in the first place only because we had a stable corporate order. And that stability - along with any semblance of economic security for many workers - is now gone.

Regular readers of this column know what I think we should do: instead of trying to provide economic security through the back door, via tax breaks designed to encourage corporations to provide health care and pensions, we should provide it through the front door, starting with national health insurance. You may disagree. But one thing is clear: Mr. Drucker`s age of discontinuity is also an age of anxiety, in which workers can no longer count on loyalty from their employers.

from his previous column:

...About the trade deficit: These days the United States imports far more than it exports. Last year the trade deficit exceeded $600 billion. The flip side of the trade deficit is a reorientation of our economy away from industries that export or compete with imports, especially manufacturing, to industries that are insulated from foreign competition, such as housing. Since 2000, we`ve lost about three million jobs in manufacturing, while membership in the National Association of Realtors has risen 50 percent.

The trade deficit isn`t sustainable. We can run huge deficits for the time being, because foreigners - in particular, foreign governments - are willing to lend us huge sums. But one of these days the easy credit will come to an end, and the United States will have to start paying its way in the world economy.

To do that, we`ll have to reorient our economy back toward producing things we can export or use to replace imports. And that will mean pulling a lot of workers back into manufacturing. So the rapid downsizing of manufacturing since 2000 - of which G.M.`s job cuts are a symptom - amounts to dismantling a sector we`ll just have to rebuild a few years from now.

#210 by SaimaShah

I referred to social security just to bring a point home. It was not meant to start a debate on that issue as it is a different debate and I don’t think I have studied it enough to discuss it in details. My general comment was about an idea that I consider progressive came from the conservative party. There are many issues involved with the social security and it will need another thread to discuss that.

“I think the struggle should no longer be classified as between the liberals and the conservatives. New polarities should emerge --. In the last few years one notices an odd thought similarity between the Christian agenda and the left.”

The struggle has always been and will always remain between the liberals and the conservatives. Both groups pick up alliances and then switch alliance based on the issues at a given time. There was a time when the conservatives championed cutting and savings in the govt expenses but now they spend more and save less. The liberals are now chiding them to save and spend less. In the US, both liberals and the conservatives don’t differ a whole lot on economy… both support the current economic system but would attempt to make some changes to make the system closer to their ideals.

The religious support or abortion rights or gay marriage etc. and others are not the basic differences between the two groups. They come into play for various reasons such as elections or due to common fronts that both parties create to garner support in other areas. Some of it is pure election politics.

Many conservative support abortion and many liberals oppose abortion. The basic difference is that the conservatives believe that the Supreme Court while voting for Roe vs Wade legislated from the bench thus usurping the legislators’ rights. They also consider Abortion a state subject and contend that the US Constitution does not support the federal govt enforcing the Court decision. The liberals support Roe vs Wade from the women’s rights pov and the religious right, being a one issue group, comes down with the conservatives based on their religious ideals. If Roe vs wade is overturned the fight would just move on to the States from the Federal level.

IMO, Roe vs Wade is not a liberal issue…it is more a conservative issue as it goes against the conservative principals of federalism and liberals don’t really have any ideological beef with the issue and only support it because abortion is an important issue for the women’s right movement in the US. Similar is the case with the gay marriages and gay rights. Hard core conservatives that run the conservative movement or support the Republican Party are not religious nutcases…in fact most of them are atheist and are neutral on gay issues but they may not support gay marriages. A good number of Liberals too don’t support gay marriage.

Paul Stiles is just one voice…there are many differing opinions on the economy and he is not the most influencing factor in that area so his opinion is just one opinion. Personally, I favor Judeo-Christian values playing a role in the society as a whole but I would not favor legislating them into the system.

Re: # 222

SR Sahib… Very valid reasons to leave the evil land. Good luck and good riddance.

#185 Pardesi {“…We ‘the faithful loyalists’… how this country will be reduced to minor role in the world and which other … countries will take over …”}

I’ll begin with expressly stating my “fondest admiration” of, and my “deepest loyalty” to, the Ideas, principles and aspirations behind the American Revolution of 1776. I hold the US Constitution as one of the most bold and enlightened political documents ever conceived my man. In short, I consider myself an ardent American in the pioneer spirit. I became an American by choice, not by accident of birth. I love America but I hate the present state of affairs so I chose to live in exile from my adopted homeland.

Please do not give me undeserved credit for having left the country on account of any high moral principles. No. I left out of fear. Fear of my personal future and that of my wife and children. But, of course, no one knows what future will bring. We only guess and estimate future outcomes aided by incomplete and uncertain information.

Like the former Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, the “Union” of the current United Soviet States of America, may not last as a monolithic union. Some states, or blocks of states, may some day wish to free themselves from their federal shackles. This sounds absurd today, but when the stage is set it could happen quickly.

In 1980, the US was still the world’s largest creditor. By 1985 it had become a net debtor. This trend accelerated under Greenspan. Since Alan Greenspan took office on Aug. 11, 1987:

•Consumer credit has skyrocketed from $672.2 billion to $2.1 trillion (up 212%)
•Outstanding household debt has grown $2.7 trillion, to $10.764 trillion (up 298%)
•Domestic business debt shot from $1.9 trillion to $5.2 trillion (up 174%)
•Annual trade deficit has gone from $150.7 billion to $756.8 billion (up 402%)
•Total of foreign-owned U.S. assets has shot from $1.7 trillion to $11.5 trillion (up 576%)

As the author of the article points out, consumer spending cannot make people rich; instead, it makes them poor. You don’t get rich by spending; you get rich by saving…and building new businesses, new factories, and new and better products. You get rich by foregoing consumption in favor of production - so you can produce better automobiles, for example, than your competitors. But the United States has done just the opposite. It consumes…and allows its competitors to invest and produce. Where do you think this might lead the US?

This is not Relativity or Quantum Mechanics that simpletons like me can’t grasp. This is just plain common sense question…

Would someone hazard a guess? What could be the ramifications of these facts on civil society? What could happen to the law and order situation if the system experiences economic shocks and sporadic breakdowns? Did we see a glimpse of that post-Katrina? What could the bankruptcy of GM or the collapse of Fannie Mae do? GM, for instance, has a market value today that is not too far from $20 billion but has issued over $300 billion in corporate bonds. Who will pay those bond investors? They are not rich tycoons by the way. They are your pension funds.

2004 was also a watershed year. For 63 years the USA was like a magnet, attracting the world’s best “brains” to its shores. There was a net brain-gain, year after year, for 63 years. That, tragically, changed for the first time in 2004. For the first time in over six decades there was a net brain-drain from the US. Why? I believe because the USA has become the USSA (insert the extra “S” for Soviet)… Government of the Corporations, by the Corporations, for the Corporations. (The term fascist is more appropriate, but Soviet rhymes better and invokes the image.)

The media mold the mind of man today. Those who can exert subtle influence and effect policy can alter history. No one ever prove anything. Even pointing out strange and suspicious connections earns one the label of a conspiracy theorist.

Take Donald Rumsfeld for example. In 1997 he became chairman of a company called Gilead. Even today he holds millions in the company stock. Gilead has a patent on a drug called Tamiflu. Its an anti-viral drug. Yes, the same Tamiflu we are told will flight off the dread Avian Flu… and is produced by Roche. Roche is the licensed manufacturer of the drug, not the drugs owner. Gilead owns Tamiflu, yet the news media only talk about Roche. No one mentions Rummy. Is this a co-incidence? Maybe it is. Maybe not.

There are too many questions... few straight answers. Being complacent and unquestioning is only done at our personal and collective peril.

...SR

Simon_Templar have fished out some excellent ideas out of this ... well, that in itself is something and by the way ST dude, this was not atrocious - had it been written with a little more clarity, you would be prolly the only one using the excellent word.

Saima Shah:
before goading Left and the entire shabang, could you please clarify what are your personal positions on a woman`s right to choose and on according Equal civic rights to gays and lesbians - specifically: gay marriages and adoption issues?

Thanks.

Excellent ideas. Atrotious writing. It should`ve gone through rigorous
editing before being splattered on the FP.

Now that FV is the editor, maybe things will improve.

SaimaShah #210

`` 1.I think the struggle should no longer be classified as between the liberals and the conservatives. New polarities should emerge --. In the last few years one notices an odd thought similarity between the Christian agenda and the left. Democrats get excited at this and jump up and down thinking that the world has seen the error of its ways and will accept what the Left has to say, since it is really speaking for the common man. In the last elections, this hope was dashed because the Republicans successfully divided any alliance between the Left and conservatives generating controversy over abortion and homosexuality. ``

A lot of social conservatives are economic liberals. A lot of social liberals are fiscal conservatives. There is nothing new about it.

`` For a take on how religion can align with the left, see ``Is the American Dream Killing You?` by Paul Stiles. Paul Stiles was a stock trader who sees religion as the antithesis of the market. From Washington Post, ``Lamenting that the market ``has deeply penetrated our national identity,`` Stiles recommends an economic exorcism, one that should trouble anyone concerned with the establishment clause of the Constitution and the separation of church and state. He proposes a market ``restrained by Judeo-Christian values, as codified in law and represented in democratic institutions.`` This is ``a recipe for social success,`` he claims, ``the very recipe that made America.`` ``

Most free marketers do not call for unrestrained capitalism. Most of them agree for the need for rules. Anti-trust legislation is one of the prime examples of such rules.

`` To quote Bill Grossman, ``the ratio of retirees to workers - the dependency ratio - soars from 0.2 retirees for every worker to 0.35 over the next 20 years or so. Neither privatization nor any goodly number of government bonds deposited in the Social Security trust fund can solve it. While these paper assets may ``pay`` for goods and services, their value will be market adjusted in future years to exactly match the quantity of things we buy, and that quantity will be substantially a function of the available workforce and the price they command for their services. This is a concise way of saying that the value of Treasury bonds and even stocks will be valued down in price as they are sold to pay for future goods and services, and that the price of these goods and services will be marked up (inflation) to justify their reduced supply. ``

The demand for goods and reduction in the supply of labor is a good incentive to automate the delivery of services and the manufacturing and distribution of goods.

#217, Apni ghaleeJ Jaban ko aisy jagah ghuseRdo jahan shams ki koi parwah na ho.

Re: # 216

Wah! Just like a cowardly man-hides behind yet another anon nic, and when exposed for his stupidity, acts as if he is actually worth something...

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

i think people are making too much about the creativity of the americans. in fact, i dont even think americans are top dogs when it comes to creativity. and please dont use hollywood as an example cause hollywood is to creativity what mcdonalds and taco bell are to food.

i can also name a group of people that can beat the americans hands down when it comes to flair and creativity. and all this while enjoying the afternoon siesta during workday. consider:

i. the choice between driving an american sports car vs. an italian sports car

ii. between eating an american meal vs. an italian meal

iii. wearing american clothes vs. italian clothes

iv. between american architecture vs. italian architecture

v. dating a hot american khatoon vs. a hot italian khatoon

i think even real americans i.e. goras would agree with me that americans are not in the top category when it comes to creating things with flair and panache. this is however not to suggest that americans cant be creative. the simpsons for example are pure work of genius. but then, the british created monty python and we in pak had 50-50 woh bhee under zia. so go figure.

#209 ***if I don`t insist on prenup with u, and assure a hefty monthly allowance for wifely duties and ur other `feminist` activities. ***

freesoul,
Please consider the evidence before making any shaikh chilli plans. A picture is worth a thousand words. :)

Re: # 203 and 209

You guys are hilarious! Keep it up :)

Re: # 209

Again...your mommy is wrong....

re:Hp 204 &208

:) Happy Thanksgiving btw. Hopefully tossing the ball back in the replies helped digest the feast.

1.I think the struggle should no longer be classified as between the liberals and the conservatives. New polarities should emerge --. In the last few years one notices an odd thought similarity between the Christian agenda and the left. Democrats get excited at this and jump up and down thinking that the world has seen the error of its ways and will accept what the Left has to say, since it is really speaking for the common man. In the last elections, this hope was dashed because the Republicans successfully divided any alliance between the Left and conservatives generating controversy over abortion and homosexuality.

For a take on how religion can align with the left, see ``Is the American Dream Killing You?` by Paul Stiles. Paul Stiles was a stock trader who sees religion as the antithesis of the market. From Washington Post, ``Lamenting that the market ``has deeply penetrated our national identity,`` Stiles recommends an economic exorcism, one that should trouble anyone concerned with the establishment clause of the Constitution and the separation of church and state. He proposes a market ``restrained by Judeo-Christian values, as codified in law and represented in democratic institutions.`` This is ``a recipe for social success,`` he claims, ``the very recipe that made America.``

2.Privatizing social security will not have the impact that the conservatives hope for because it is a problem of demographics. Whether people themselves buy bonds or the govt., does it for them, it is the number of people that is the problem. There is a population disparity between retirees and new workers. Quite obviously the Bush govt. is not pursuing immigration as a solution--it may be because it thinks America just cannot compete any longer by producing within its borders, no point increasing workers. Or there could be more sinister reasons. It could be a failure of imagination on the part of the government--or just racism from the conservatives.

To quote Bill Grossman, ``the ratio of retirees to workers - the dependency ratio - soars from 0.2 retirees for every worker to 0.35 over the next 20 years or so. Neither privatization nor any goodly number of government bonds deposited in the Social Security trust fund can solve it. While these paper assets may ``pay`` for goods and services, their value will be market adjusted in future years to exactly match the quantity of things we buy, and that quantity will be substantially a function of the available workforce and the price they command for their services. This is a concise way of saying that the value of Treasury bonds and even stocks will be valued down in price as they are sold to pay for future goods and services, and that the price of these goods and services will be marked up (inflation) to justify their reduced supply.

Where Social Security and privatization supporters err is with their assumption that retirees’ goods and services can somehow magically be generated or even multiplied by the existence of a certain amount of government or private IOUs. They cannot, at least within the U.S. borders. Production can only come from employed workers and so the basic solution is to produce more workers, either through immigration or postponed retirement for the existing workforce.``

The motives for the Iraq war are a whole chapter in themselves. The questions in #190 were meant to show the lack of accountability in the new America. Clinton was almost impeached for a possible lie to ostensibly protect Lewinsky. But Bush roams scot free after invading a country for dubious reasons and killing thousands of people. Instead protesters and parents of killed soldiers are arrested for demonstrating. The bureacracy is still debating whether he was to blame or not. The political process of America has failed.

Re: # 199 by saminashah

[ As for your dating site comments, you should be thanking goddess this isnt a dating site (for most of us)...were it that, your shortcomings would be deafening. ]

I am quite sure those deficiences of mine can be compensated for u, if I don`t insist on prenup with u, and assure a hefty monthly allowance for wifely duties and ur other `feminist` activities.

Addressing some issues in Saima’s # 190

The conservative game plan is clearly to establish a framework where the world is in awe of the US. (This goes to the assertion that everything will turn left if the framework is not defined…The awareness that the benevolent view in the US will triumph, if the world is not in awe of the US.)

Let’s look at the most recent wars…
Reagan was so hot on Nicaragua and the struggle between the Sandinista and the Contras. His administration made that appear like the last decisive war in the world… in reality Nicaragua was just a small conflict and it was used by the Conservatives to intimidate South America and the world. Similarly the Iraq-Kuwait conflict (‘91) was a small regional conflict that could have been resolved thru diplomatic pressure. The US and the West were more than capable of diplomatic pressure but the whole incident was used to again intimidate people in that region and hide the benevolent face of the US. The current conflict in Iraq is manufactured and could have been handled in a non military ways.
The democrats have been involved in Vietnam and Bosnia… For Vietnam, the democrat President who was more conservative than the average democrat gave up power but the Republican President who led the war had to be ousted thru unrelated charges. Bosnia was a hidden war. The liberal President never tried to make it a full-scale war like the conservative President did in Iraq.

All these war were/are a reflection of internal US politics. It is important for the conservatives to favor a full-scale media war over a peaceful resolution of the conflicts. It helps to slowdown the onslaught of the liberal ideas both internally and externally. Internally though, the conservatives end up just following the left reluctantly. They have been regularly forced to uphold the liberal agenda and the best examples are the affirmative action, civil rights, and Healthcare for the elderly. Surprisingly, the most progressive idea in recent years, the overhaul of the Social security, came from the conservatives (partial privatization) and liberals are opposing it to eventually own it in future. In the last 50 years the conservatives have not been able to overturn any liberal initiatives and gains though they try really hard.

The conflict between the liberals and conservatives in the US is not confined to the political parties alone; it has strong roots in the bureaucracy too. While Langley and the State dept generally favor the liberal or the non militaristic pov, the Pentagon and the army lean heavily with the conservatives.
This conflict is evident in every little policy debate the US had in the last 40 years. The fall of the Soviet Union or in other words the disappearance of a formidable external enemy has turned the internal struggle even more acute.

The conservatives attempt to bring out laws and create situations that often appear non-democratic or harsh such as the Patriot act etc. The issues or the accusations in post# 190 are conservative world view…they are not endorsed by the liberals in the sense that these policies cannot be reversed in future. So these harsh measures cannot be held against the US as they are all dispensable.

The current admin initiated the Iraq war to meet its two goals 1) To intimidate the world and 2) to establish itself as the prime political ideology internally. It succeeded in both goals when it won the control of the Senate and then won the Presidency again. Now it does not have much interest in Iraq so that country would languish and perhaps enter a civil war phase that may in turn shake up the area. The next conservative President may have Iran to worry about but the Liberals are attempting to find a way to break this cycle.
The game continues…

Pardesi-
Will come back to your post later…

Re: # 183

You might want to read this.

http://www.pimco.com/LeftNav/Late+Breaking+Commentary/IO/2004/IO_Oct_2004.htm

``a question that no rational money manager or economist wants to answer for fear of becoming a fool, or a conspiratorial kook. Why does the U.S. government and the Fed continue to foist this hedonic/substitution mantra on a gullible public when they should know better and when, by the way, no other government does it in the same magnitude and with the same conviction? Let me just answer it this way – and hopefully not seem foolish (or worse) in the process. Alan Greenspan has a dual prerogative at the Federal Reserve. He is charged with keeping inflation low and economic output high. The magic of hedonic/substitution adjustments keeps both of these birds flyin’ at the same time, one under the magical 2% radar, which marks the dividing line between benign and worrisome inflation, and the other (real GDP), over the hurdle of 3% which suggests the continuation of high productivity, along with its concomitant implications that the stock market should be healthy, the dollar strong, and all’s well with the Greenspan legacy. Granted Greenspan doesn’t run the BLS, but he pounds the table hard for hedonically adjusted statistics. They might serve him well, but they do a disservice to those grounded in the reality of stretching a paycheck for new cars, laptop computers, and cell phones that somehow haven’t gone down as much in price as the government says they have.``

Re: # 205

Some of your post makes points that have been fairly discredited by:

1. Barbara Ehrenreich`s Nickled and Dimed, Fear of Failure: The Middle Class
2. Jonathan Kozol`s extensive series on the South Bronx
3. David Shipler`s books on the working class
4. William Julius Wilson`s and
5. Michael Harrington`s pieces on economics, poverty and sociology
6. The New York Times articles on the working poor in the last two years

The list goes on-I just dont have the time to go into it. These broad generalizations of why capitalism works or fails, or distorted attempts at defining socialism or communism lack the imagination and accuracy to document these systems at work. At least academia has the wherewithall and focus to investigate these issues-some of y`all are still quoting William Buckley and Ayn Rand like they are the truth....and clearly, it just aint so....

HP is right-mediocrity finds a way to maintain the status quo....

#204 HP

{I am kind of surprised at both Pardesi and Freesouls not taking it up or perhaps they don’t wanna go that route}

You are right. I wanted to stay away from this line of thought. It’s an extensive discussion topic and academic types can refute you no matter what you say. Anyway here are my two cents:

Marx contributed immensely to human development at the time and humanity should be ever grateful to him. Workers became very conscious of their rights and exploitation. However, it lost its relevance within 100 years since –

- Russians and other communists started treating him as another prophet and any deviation was considered heresy. You know that as soon as you start doing that, you bury the poor prophet and his vision. In that sense, Chinese were very smart. They used communism to wake up the farmers and poor folks and then adopted capitalism to get to the higher development gear.
- Capitalists became smarter and co-opted the workers. People like you and me could get a piece (small though) of action.
- Financial markets got smarter so that one can start business with others’ capital. You do not need to be born rich to get rich.
- As the production modes moved from pure manufacturing to more intellectual contribution, communists just did not have an answer as to how to motivate the workers. It worked when “nation was in danger” but after that it was a problem.

The result, people are attracted to left when they have nothing (unless they genuinely feel a higher calling to get rid of “injustice” in the world). But once they have reasonable stake in the economy and see future for their children, they are hopeful and work their tail off to succeed. And this is where I can say - Welcome to America :)

There is a saying that if you are not a leftist by 25, something is wrong with you (i.e., you are not an idealist and care only about material stuff). But at 40, if you are still a leftist you have a huge problem since you might be a financial failure.

#168 by SaimaShah

``The divide between socialism/capitalism is artificial and perhaps quite quite unnecessary.``
#167 by Saminasha
“discuss the theory and practice of the dialectic”
#183 by SR
“Many of us desi-babus are literalists. Another word for this is fundamentalists.”

I was looking for some practical ways to shed 3800 calories that I absorbed last night over the thanksgiving dinner. One idea was to try and read comments on this article. Some are really intelligent (literally) and the ones quoted above really needed a discussion but it seems that people simply missed the point the “left” is trying to make here. I am kind of surprised at both Pardesi and Freesouls not taking it up or perhaps they don’t wanna go that route.

Both Saima and Samina are intentionally or not, pointing out to very important aspect of the progress this world is witnessing. There is a sort of conventional wisdom out there that if you don’t frame issues in the right context or leave them to take their own course, they would turn left.
The world is moving towards the left. Liberals and Progressives are the new words for the left and for me they mean the same in this current political context.
In the last three hundred years, human have progressed in a Malthusian way and I don’t mean the population or the catastrophe but as in the exponential rate of progress. This progress has proven Marx more right than any other political scientist or philosopher.

Marx was not responsible for the rise and fall of the Soviet Union. So if the communism or socialism or whatever the heck that was going on in the SU failed, it can’t be placed on Marx doorsteps. He did establish the framework for the forces that provide conflicting thoughts in human progress thus dialectic is perhaps the single most important part of analyzing the arguments that have befallen this earth in the last couple of centuries. Marx is a must read for every political scientist, liberal or conservative. Without reading and understanding Marx no one can successfully and correctly analyze the ideological, political, economic or the philosophical struggle that is taken place in the world and the political scientists of any hue who have not read Marx, have always made wrong conclusions in their analysis. In other words, Marx is much more relevant now than he ever was during the cold war.

The current struggle in the US is still between the liberals and conservatives. The liberals started with the New Deal to save the US from falling into the hands of marauding communists after the depression. Since then the conservatives in the US are chasing the left to slowdown the US progress to socialism and historically they are on the wrong side as the world can only progress and cannot go back. If one were to compare the US of the year 1900 to the US of 2000, one would right away see the emergence of a welfare economy, adaptation of socialistic ideals and acceptance of an international role that is essentially benevolent but sometimes appears harsh as the US conservatives often attempt to distort it to slowdown the progress.

Re: # 202

Sahibzada,

Although your mommy has told you about the place of women being the kitchen, youre going to have to file that opinion with her pronouncements on other wifely duties.

We all have jobs. What I can`t get over is how incompetants like you and your ilk do....thank god for those subsidized old boys clubs, hain?

Re: # 201

Sahibzadi, if you like listening to yourself, more power to you. If there is anything else I can offer, let me know, otherwise you know what to do – yes, find a job. Thanks.

My little pumpkin pie, I will try my best to agree with you and where you think my feedback belongs, in future. Honey buns, did I leave anything?

Re: # 200

``Do you consider licking each other’s ass as feedback?``

Again Sahibzada, unsolicited info. Please save your dating requirements for up where they would seem to fit right in.

Also, who else but a pseudo intellectual use the term I introduced here in the last two weeks? Sahibzada, you could not make yourself think long enough to come up with another term...thats Republican wit for you.

But the following post, I am forced to agree, should not be considered `feedback``...its so embarrassing, you should be legally required to keep its perfomance to sites of waste management:

``Saima Ji…there is plenty of ``descent`` (emphasis mine) and debate within the country. We don’t need ``Nazis`` telling us how to treat prisoners, nor do we need French to lecture us on race relations. If we need some help with pancakes or Maple syrup, we will ask for your help.

No one is personally attacking you. We are only attacking your point of view, which is neither pointy nor viewy. Trust me with such thin skin, you won’t last a day in New York City, and forget about working in a corporation. ``


Case closed.

Re: # 199

Saminasha

Do you consider licking each other’s ass as feedback? What feedback are you talking about? Haven’t you seen long feedback that was given? If it doesn’t meet someone’s hateful anti-American underachiever rambling, it still is a feedback. Underachiever middlers only like to get feedback that they agree with. It is fairly common among unemployed pseudo intellectuals.

Yes, it is very interesting for Chavez to subsidize heating oil in poor American neighborhoods as if that Oil belongs to Chavez personally (and not to the people of VZ). He is so dumb for his own good. If Americans could get his oil without paying a penny for it, they will.

Freesoul and Kulaharee Sahibeh,

As neither of you as provided any kind of substantial feedback, it would be quite foolish of you to go about casting aspersions on a writer who has at least taken the time and effort to discuss these issues with intelligence. Again, we are talking about interactors who have fallen back on the most cliched and discredited stereotypes within the North American imagination (i.e. welfare queens, invisible work in the domestic sphere, divorce system abuse) and presented them as gospel...

As for your dating site comments, you should be thanking goddess this isnt a dating site (for most of us)...were it that, your shortcomings would be deafening.

---

Saima,

Hugo Chavez has offered billions of dollars of oil at huge discounts to the South Bronx. The Rep think tanks havent been madder since Castro sent his doctors to serve the African American community in the South.

Re: # 197

kulharee, i stopped taking her seriously, but as a long time chowk reader, i want it to to give opportunities to other talented ppl. If ppl see such low rated artciles, advertised on the top of the web site for long, they would stop sending their high-quality articles.

The longer this artcile stays on tope of chowk, as some kind of flagship piece, the lower chowk`s prestige becomes. I request the admins here to atleast remove it from the main page (along with the picture). Also, I am not interested in seeing ppl`s pictures here. Is this some dating site?

Re: # 196

Freeesoul Sahib, let the poor girl have her little 15 minutes of dimness for being the lousiest Canadian comedian. Don’t tell me that you are taking her stuff seriously? First I thought she had a big chip on her shoulder (whe she was telling Americans how little they know about their own challenges, and how they should travel outside..as if she is some bigwig at some big international job) but now I am beginning to wonder whether it is a combination of being a nutjob and being not a very bright bulb in the chandelier. And not forgetting the bitterness, underachievement and the hatred components.

Re: # 195

Seems like classical `Judith Miller` case of Weapons of Intellignce Destruction, to me.

Excuse me for being off the track....but why is this so-reviled and under-rated article still on the top of the chowk.com page, for like 2 weeks? Everytime, it goes back to `civic center`, it is then brought fore again.

Is this blatant abuse of editor-in-chief position? What next? Who edits her articles before they go to even chowk.com? Is there any accountability going on here?

SaimaShah #190

`` Which country went into Iraq on dubious grounds, un ratified by the UN that it had helped create? ``

USA went into Iraq on dubious grounds. So what ? Is it any worse than the Pakistani generals who created the Taliban ?

`` Which country owes a public apology for invading Iraq? ``

I doubt the Shites and Kurds of Iraq (who make up 75% of Iraq`s population) are demanding an apology.

`` Which country is after the entire world to sign the Non profileration treaty for nuclear arms yet will never do so itself? ``

The NPT has been successful in preventing states like Germany, Japan, South Korea, Italy, Brazil etc. from developing nuclear weapons. What is your gripe ?

`` Which country sabotages public debate on global warming?
Which country has effectively sabotaged implementation of Kyoto treaty? ``

I hope you understand the implications of CO2 rollback.

`` Which country publicizes spending numbers per quarter rather than annual incomes when it discusses the economy on TV? ``

Why does that bother you ? If you do not want to report your finances on a quarterly basis you can go private. There is no requirement for a private company in USA to even release an annual report.

`` Which country has fined demonstrators for standing outside the Presidents house and protesting against the massacre of their children in Iraq? Even though the right is the first amendment? 370 demonstrators were fined recently ``

This is the worst example you can come up with.

`` Which country has signed in the most controversial laws e.g., Patriot Act in the last few years? ``

Yeah the Patriot act is controversial. There is a lot of debate in the US Congress. It is called the ``American Way``.

`` Which country is planning on letting corporations not provide full medical insurance, instead create a medical account? Ostensibly to make America remain competitive?. ``

Look at the fate of corporations in the steel, auto and airline industries with huge health care and pension liabilities.

`` Which country relies mostly on foreigners to fill its Universities? ``

Why is that a negative ? If America stopped admitting foreigners you would still be complaining. Make up your mind !!!

190 Please to review humbolt answers to penetrating questions posed by honorific authoress:

Which country went into Iraq on dubious grounds, un ratified by the UN that it had helped create? United Kingdom of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Cornwall, Leicester, and England
Which country owes a public apology for invading Iraq? Italy, Iran, Israel, UK, Spain, Japan
Which country is after the entire world to sign the Non profileration treaty for nuclear arms yet will never do so itself? India and Pakistan
Which country sabotages public debate on global warming? Canada
Which country has effectively sabotaged implementation of Kyoto treaty? Japan (I think that`s where Kyoto was last seen.)
Which country publicizes spending numbers per quarter rather than annual incomes when it discusses the economy on TV? Bangladesh
Which country has fined demonstrators for standing outside the Presidents house and protesting against the massacre of their children in Iraq? Even though the right is the first amendment? 370 demonstrators were fined recently - Pakistan
Which country has signed in the most controversial laws e.g., Patriot Act in the last few years? United Kingdom of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Cornwall, Leicester, and England
Which country has effectively sidelined any dissent about the ``System`` by labeling it as a leftist agenda? Russia
Which country is planning on letting corporations not provide full medical insurance, instead create a medical account? Ostensibly to make America remain