A CLASSIC POST RE TRADE INVESTMENT ASIA STRATEGY ETC

http://bozonbloggon.blogspot.com/2011/01/re-robert-reich-nyt-recover-our.html

Here is that post:

RE ROBERT REICH NYT RECOVER OUR SPENDING POWER BRAUDEL THE MEDITERRANEAN NOT THE WILD WEST

Income redistribution, taken in isolation, makes some sense. 


The rest of it is mostly the same globalist consumerist model nonsense we see even from ostensibly 'progressive' pundits. 


They are essentially one trick ponies: blobalism is good. 
Let's just try to tweak it, and somehow everything will turn out all right.


Rather, we should discourage (even attempt to prevent), not encourage, further or high speed growth in China, for the most obvious military, commercial, financial, resource, and environmental reasons; just as we should have in Japan, which pundits seem everywhere now to be analogizing to China, deja vu, for very similar reasons. 


(The pundits say 'like Japan 20 years ago', but 50 years back, for Japan, would be closer, if you do the research.


Pundits will say China has almost all of certain metals. One reason is that we did not bother to mine them somewhere else.) 


Even back then, 50 years ago, Japan was playing three sides in the Cold War behind our back, investing in China, its ostensible cold war enemy.


Here is a quote from The Coming Conflict With China: 


'"(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.'


For Japan, similar quotes can be found. 
See also  The Coming War With Japan, especially "The Grand Strategy of Japan".


As I have pointed out, as well as their own pundits, Japan was allowed to hollow out the American industrial base (ie Japan's own ostensible defense umbrella industrial base). On this topic, a passage from The coming War With Japan is apposite, see p. 


China has been in process of squashing it flat. No more umbrella. 


It is not 'the world is flat', but the American producer economy, that is flat.


There is no trade and investment learning curve in the US.


Matter of fact, 'high growth' per se should be discouraged, everywhere. 


Especially, why grow your future enemies, even if it seems a great bargain today?


Reich, and American elites, both share the view that it is basically a hunky dory situation, and all we need to do is a little trade tweaking, and some domestic income redistribution, in order to continue to high grow these developmental regimes. They think of the world as one of open opportunity, on the model of the American West, where capitalism can create its own sources of opportunity as it goes along.


Think instead of the Mediterranean world, as described by Braudel, a world of relative scarcity surrounded by hungry societies each striving, since ancient times, Rome, Carthage, Persia, etc., for a livelihood. See also Clifford A. Wright, A Mediterranean Feast, a cookbook with some history included.


That is emphatically not how it will turn out, either for American elites, or for American middle or lower class persons.


Term search also Chalmers Johnson, Prestowitz, etc. 


Johnson, Japan: Who Governs? Esp. Ch. 5 is useful, for Americans who cannot understand why their political system and economy do not flourished, are now flat; in spite of, and crushed by, all this great blobalization.


People like James Grant would not agree with any of this. I use his ideas, re currencies, when they happen to agree with mine.

audience today

Entry	Pageviews
United States	7
China	1

RE GOING ROGUE PALIN ETC

The term, turning or going rogue,  goes way back, of course.

Colonial governors were regularly accused, by inflamed colonists, of turning rogue, in the colonial period.

See Bailyn, The Origins Of American Politics, pb, p. 137.

Those governors, back then, however, usually were relatively well qualified, comparatively speaking, and normally did not go rogue so to speak.

RE ORIGINS AMERICAN POLITICS BAILYN

He even uses the word compartmentalization, re the discipline of history re origins, at the end of the book.

There was no calm before the rebellion storm.

The whole Eighteenth Century here was a waste land of political disorder, anarchy, and mayhem. The colonial period was one long political storm, colony by colony.

The usual alleged trigger causes were nothings, Stamp Act, Townshend Duties, Massacre, in the larger scheme of things.

The end of the Seven Years War was really a chance to impose a modicum of order.

WHY SHOULDNT BULGARIA PREVENT FOREIGNERS FROM ITS FARM LAND

Forget the EU.

It is a doomsday institution.

US CRITICIZES CHINA GERMANY EXPORT LEAD GROWTH GAME OVER ECONOMISTS

Call in Steingart.

Same old tired platitudes, fall out from our own globalization initiatives after WWII, 70 odd years ago now.

As I have pointed out, way too late now to turn back to a healthy nationalism, so

game over.

REPRISE MORAL PILLARS CARTOON BONOBOES

Someone liked this.
Here it is again.

http://bozonbloggon.blogspot.com/2010/07/monkey-see-monkey-do-cartoon.html

RE THE PUBLIC ROLE OF ACADEMICS

Put another way, my view, of the conflict between co Nobel laureates in economics, is that although theoretically this dispute could be resolved within the discipline of economics, it cannot actually be, as that discipline is constituted, and further, the only way to get beyond such an ostensibly intradisciplinary dispute, to see it in perspective, is from outside economics, to draw on insights from other fields.

Framed within economics, it takes on the character of an insoluble dilemma. Viewed from outside, a pseudo dilemma.

As I have pointed out, from a US perspective, economics turned out to be our own doomsday discipline.

WHEN YOU'RE A GLOBALIST COUNTRY YOU CAN SPY ON EVERYONE

Because they are all one, under the skin.

'We are the world', as the song goes.

re multidisciplinaryanism or interdisciplinarianism

http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2973239501462830480#editor/target=post;postID=7416120139011028694

I actually meant interdisciplinarianism, rather than multidisciplinarianism, as urgently needed.

The current issue of the Stetson U Magazine nicely illustrates the distinction, and some of its confusions, in that a mere liberal education, (the issue's topic, whether liberal education is dead), is not enough.

Thus, one can see why mere casual multidisciplinarianism, which I equate to what is often meant by a liberal education, is dying, from irrelevance.

Some of the contributors equate the two, which is not appropriate.

FREE COMMENT FROM TIM KREIDER HE NEEDS JARON LANIER WHO OWNS THE WORLD

Thanks very much for your compliments on my [writing/illustration/whatever thing you do]. I’m flattered by your invitation to [do whatever it is they want you to do for nothing]. But [thing you do] is work, it takes time, it’s how I make my living, and in this economy I can’t afford to do it for free. I’m sorry to decline, but thanks again, sincerely, for your kind words about my work.

re DK POST RE ECONOMICS DISCIPLINE

Re my comment, I should add, that multidisciplinarianism unfortunately has long been practically impossible, as disciplinary compartmentalism has unfolded over the centuries.

Still, the urgency of a multidisciplinary approach has long been acute.

As the social sciences rolled out, efforts were made to connect politics and economics, thus ' political economy ', among other things. Unfortunately, this particular ' field ' was stigmatized as leftist, when little inherently lead to that interpretation except perhaps Smithianism itself.

Into the 20th century, these efforts, even, gradually fell away.

See eg Gilpin's The Political Economy of International Relations,  one of the later efforts in that direction.

Randall Collins, The Sociology of Philosophies, another worthwhile effort.

re DK ADVERSUS DUVALL

Contrary to the situation in Britain at that time, Americans today have weak conservatism and weak progressivism in the absence of the crucial ingredient, among others: nationalism.

American conservatives are globalists.

American progressives are globalists.

American liberals are globalists.

They are not nationalists, a dirty word, for us, since the Kaiser, and then Hitler.

RE DK ADVERSUS ROBERT DUVALL

Conservatives and progressives......nineteenth and twentieth century versions....

Funnily enough, if one looks back at the radical Whigs, who evolved over here into the American rebellion group, but among whom were also Tory loyalist types, the roots of our progressivisms, and conservatisms, were sort of related, and confused together, back then. They still are.

As Bailyn implies, both arose out of opposing ideologies, in the left and right opposition to the likes of Walpole.

MONITORING MERKEL'S PHONE

All in a day's work over here.

Hope it wasn't ' low bid '.

Certainly, it was an outside, Snowdon ian, contractor.

Have to outsource work like this.

selfie for the day Korean cigarette ad monkey

the dollar

Perhaps someone who can raise prices, in dollars, wouldn't worry so much about a weaker dollar.

Who can do that?

Someone who has, or can credibly fake, production monopoly power.

re lets talk the dollar

Why would anyone who holds the dollar want to see it devalued?

LEVERAGE

who has leverage, and who does not?

NASA REVERSES CHINA SCIENTIST BAN

LETS TALK THE DOLLAR

Why would anyone in their right mind want to start a run on the dollar?

After all, everyone who is anyone has a lot of them.

Let's start by asking a few other kinds of questions, sort of suss this thing out, so to speak.

Who could engineer such a thing? Why?

Let's reflect on recent remarks re de Americanizing the world.

How would you do that, would you say?

How would you de Americanize the world?

Answer, de dollarize it. For a start?

Actually, that's the endgame.

One had to start out, as the Japanese, especially, did, and de industrialize it, hollow it out.

That process has continued with Asian and Mexican, production, the Chinese eventually taking production away from Mexico, neutering to some extent NAFTA, in a dog eat dog, dog eat cat, production world.

Only in that way could one set the stage, so to speak, in Asia, for de dollarizing it.