YOUR READING LIST

 MITI AND THE JAPANESE MIRACLE

THE GLOBAL TRAP 

THE WAR FOR WEALTH, GABOR STEINGART

TRADING PLACES, PRESTOWITZ

THE HUNDRED YEAR MARATHON, PILLSBURY

TRADING AMERICAN INTERESTS,FOREIGN AFFAIRS, ECKES

VAN WOLFEREN, AUTHOR

AMERICAN TRADE POLICY. ALFRED E ECKES

CHALMERS JOHNSON. AUTHOR

PAUL BAIROCH

THE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE OF NATIONS, 

MANUFACTURING MATTERS

ALEXANDER HAMILTON

WIKIPEDIA: PROTECTIONISM, TARIFF, MERCANTILISM

TRUMP'S LIBERATION DAY SPEECH

 How has he found background materials to put into this wonderful scathing, really scalding condemnatory rhetoric and  words so many of my long held positions on trade, commerce, protectionism, and launch anti globalist economic and strategic pushback? 

Certainly Bannon, by himself, is hardly enough to have come up with this thoroughgoing and multifaceted crusade.

FINALLY THERE IS A PRESIDENT WHO SEEMS TO SEE SOME OF WHAT I HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT SINCE 1978 AND WRITING HERE SINCE 2009

Sunday, March 20, 2011

RE MERCILESS GLOBAL MARKETS THOMAS FRIEDMAN PICKING WINNERS THE WAR WITH NO NAME BEHIND THE COLD WAR HAS NOW BEEN LOST

Some globalist pundits are now talking about what the future holds for their kids, backpedaling fiercely against the global economic and military tsunami they extolled the virtues of for decades, now barreling down on them, and their children, and their childrens' children, and us, and ours. 

I am going to spell out a few things that they should have been thinking about for a long long time, since the mid 60s at least.

Has it been wise, if you were worried about the world for your kids, to put off your domestic labor issues, to put government against labor as a class in favor of management, to favor foreign over domestically produced goods, to allow your corporations to offshore jobs, and then factories, and then major investments;

has it been wise to think mainly only in relatively short term profitability, as a criterion, for anything, anything, if you were worried, really worried, about your kids, or their kids?

Let's talk briefly about the issue of labor and unions.

Offshoring capacity, and buying foreign goods and services, not only puts your own domestic work force out of work permanently, but also puts the labor force and capital investments of your new global economy at the political, ideological, economic, ethnic, civilizational, and military command of foreign governments, 

which can change, sometimes quite drastically, sometimes to a political stance contrary to your wishes, sometimes almost overnight, 

always however, it seems, transforming fairly quickly, say in 20 years nowadays, the lapse of one generation, 

from a cheap source of labor or materials into a more expensive, and adversarial, competitor. 

That has been the pattern over and over again now for at least 50 years.

How do you 'bust', or for that matter, defend, a foreign labor force, when a foreign regime supports other pressing agendas; like taking over world domination; or dominating its neighbors where you also may have large investments; or dominating your other markets; or dominating your domestic market; or controlling, or taking over your domestic political system, against your own narrow corporate interests, just for a few little examples?

That all kind of starts to sound a great deal worse than would have been simply dealing with domestic management and labor issues in the first place, and trying to keep as much production and consumption as possible domestic, and to build a stronger well integrated domestic economy. 

Many other implications beside labor or unions flowed from foreign investment, trade concessions, and offshored production. The process really started before WW II, and accelerated with the Marshall Plan, and then especially with Cold War trade and market concessions.

Most people (I mean mainly intellectuals now; almost no one reads Fukuyama in reality) do not know it, they read things like The End Of History And The Last Man, and follow people like Fukuyama, and actually believe that the US, and its ideology 'won' what it calls the Cold War. 

Pundits like Thomas Friedman actually buy this 'Whig Interpretation' (see Butterfield's sense of the term); 

and Prestowitz follows Fukuyama and Friedman in Rogue Nation, buying Friedman's foolish pronouncements, and giving a credibility to Fukuyama's bizarre idealogical positions.

Contrary to their rather puerile views, my view is that The War With No Name that has quietly been waged 'by other means' as Clausewitz so aptly had put it ("War is not merely a political act, but also a political instrument, a continuation of political relations, a carrying out of the same by other means") simultaneously with the Cold War, call it 'The War For Picking Winners In The World Of The Future', has now been lost.

More on these themes shortly.

Terms search Krugman Thomas Friedman David Brooks Milton Friedman Fukuyama Chalmers Johnson Prestowitz Eckes Fallows Van Wolferen Ohmae George Friedman Meredith LeBard Maverick Executive Mise en scene cartoon Macaire

GENERAL ZHENYU

Thursday, February 7, 2019

A PROPOS WORDS OF WISDOM DK COMMENTS

'"(As for the United States) for a relatively long time it will be absolutely necessary that we quietly nurse our sense of vengeance....We must conceal our abilities and bide our time."--

Lieutenant General Mi Zhenyu, Vice Commandant, Academy of Military Sciences, Beijing.'

THE NYT IS SAYING THIS IS A WORLD THE PANDEMIC CREATED IT IS A WORLD THE US CREATED BY OFFSHORING MILITARY WEAPON LEVEL TECH TO CHINA UNDER FAUCI

IS ATTACKING GOVERNMENT ALWAYS GOOD POLITICS?

THE FAR BETTER AND MORE USEFUL QUSTION IS:

IS GOING AFTER GOVERNMENT ALWAYS GOOD JOURNALISM?

THE ANSWER THAT CONSERVATIVE ERECT AND UPTHRUSTING ORGANS HAVE LONG CHANTED FOR MANY DECADES, BUT ONLY TO THEMSELVES IS:

YES YES YES!

THEY HABITUALLY, SNAKELIKE, JAM THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND FREE SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION UP EVERYONE'S ASS BUT THEIR OWN.

THIS POST IS ALSO DEDICATED TO RANDY FERTEL, WHO SHOULD UNDERSTAND.

RE NYT LIBERAL SO TO SPEAK EDITORIAL: IS GOING AFTER GOVERNMENT ALWAYS GOOD POLITICS?

THE FAR BETTER AND MORE USEFUL QUSTION IS:

IS GOING AFTER GOVERNMENT ALWAYS GOOD JOURNALISM?

THE ANSWER THAT THE NYT AND OTHER LIBERAL ERECT AND UPTHRUSTING ORGANS HAVE LONG CHANTED FOR MANY DECADES, BUT ONLY TO THEMSELVES IS:

YES YES YES!

THEY HABITUALLY, SNAKELIKE, JAM THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND FREE SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION UP EVERYONE'S ASS BUT THEIR OWN.

THIS POST IS DEDICATED TO RANDY FERTEL, WHO SHOULD UNDERSTAND.

CHINA BLAST FROM THE PAST

Thursday, February 7, 2019

A PROPOS WORDS OF WISDOM DK COMMENTS

'"(As for the United States) for a relatively long time it will be absolutely necessary that we quietly nurse our sense of vengeance....We must conceal our abilities and bide our time."--

Lieutenant General Mi Zhenyu, Vice Commandant, Academy of Military Sciences, Beijing.'

Saturday, October 21, 2017

CHINA AS GLOBAL CITIZEN

It really is a sort of similar thing to what I was saying, back then, about Japan's intentions, which remain the same, 30 years ago now, all over again, but now in a much much more serious situation, going forward, than 1985.

http://williamacallahan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10Callahan-TX-ISR-08.pdf

Take a look at p 750. This was cited in Pillsbury, Ch 1 fn 36

Here is an especially wholesome and charming passsage about global citizenship:

In current discussions of world order, it is popular to see traditional China as a benevolent and magnanimous empire that provided peace and stability for centuries before the arrival of Western imperialism in the nineteenth century. This narrative is now used in Chinese and Western IR texts to explain why China is not a threat to world order in the twenty-first century (Li 1999; Zhang 2001;Kang 2007). Yet this comparison of a war-mongering Westphalian Europe with a peace-loving imperial China employs a very narrow definition of ‘‘war’’ as an inter-state phenomena, and a very shallow understanding of China’s historical experience (Kang 2003:65–66; Hui 2008). Actually, the Chinese state was often engaged in violent interactions with states and semi-states along its frontiers. In its first century, the Qing dynasty (1644–1911) expanded massively in the west, including a struggle over the northwest frontier with Czarist Russia and the Mongolian Zunghar state that lasted into the 1770s. Rather than being a case of Western imperial incursion into China (as it is presented in China’s modernhistory textbooks), this episode is better understood as a violent struggle between three empires—the Manchu Qing, Czarist Russia, and the Mongolian Zunghar—which resulted in the annihilation of the Zunghar as a people

LETS JUST TURN AND FACE IT

 Locke wa never the kind founding father that Americans later have thought they had had.

He was actually in favor of chattel slavery, owned big investments himself in the Africa Company and the africa slave trade, did not consider all humans equal, did not favor universal or even expanded suffrage or womens suffrage, was hostile to both the Anglican and Catholic churches, and had many other English Puritan Latitudinarian Dissenter and armed revolt option revolutionary views.