"The influence of foreign money, of indebtedness to foreigners, of dependence on foreign oil, hangs over Washington D.C. like a gallows. ... It may be said that McKinley held a classical rather than an economic position. He looked back to ancient wisdom, ignoring the modern economics. It is not that economics is wrong in its principles of efficiency. Merely, economics is one-sided. Economic efficiency is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. And yet, today's politics would leave you with this very impression. Today's political thinking, with its emphasis on globalization, free trade and permeable borders would shock a man like McKinley. The ongoing debasement of America's currency would illicit, from him, groans of disapproval. He would ask: What do the Americans of 2008 think they are doing? ... Joseph ... Schumpeter penned the following memorable lines: '[If] we have got to live in a mercantilist, nationalist, bellicose world dominated by a few great empires, on the one hand, and if the domestic policy of this country is to remain free to shape its own destiny, on the other hand, I do not see the possibility, and I should very much doubt the wisdom, of any major deviation from the policy of protection.' ... In opposition to self-sufficiency, our theorists and politicians talk glowingly of 'interdependence'--that form of dependency that draws nations and continents together in a process that ultimately promises 'one world,' one 'global village' (a.k.a. globalism) ... This oppressive ideology pretends that opposing forces can amalgamate under the shaky utopian ramshackle of 'multiculturalism.' To solve the problem of human difference, a counterfeit unity has been conceived. Under the rubric of tolerance we have abandoned our own heritage. ... The ancients taught that history is cyclical. ... Perhaps that is where we are headed: to a new self-sufficency, independence and rebirth. In order for this to happen the various organs of dependence--the nanny state, paper money and mass debt--must pass into oblivion", JR Nyquist at http://www.financialsense.com/, 28 March 2008.
Washington ignores the national security implications of importing manufactured goods and foreign populations. Must we lose a major war or have a civil war, before our politicians realize them? Tarriffs on certain foreign goods may be considered part of the defense "budget".
2 comments:
The gubbermint was stupid to ever allow China to accumulate that many dollars, even from their greedy perspective. Now they must kowtow because they are too cowardly to start a trade / currency war. I guess they plan to wait until china buys every last scrap of raw material we have before they realize it might be a security issue. The fed gub is run by buffoons.
BS:
I disagree with you in part, here. Uncle Sam could not stop the Chinese from accumulating dollars. It's the Chinese people who were exploited by their goverment. I agree, Uncle Sam will not tell Americans "your standard of living will decline". I also agree that by the time, if ever, Bush and his cronies realize there's a national security issue, we may be embroiled in a war with China. Yes, we have buffons in the Bush administration.
Post a Comment