Any decisions on what to do about Afghanistan and Pakistan should be made in the light of the ruinous cost to the ailing US and UK economies of these wars.
The Iraqi surge was morally the right thing to do, given the bloodshed there, and the fact that the allies had broken the previous status quo; the surge gave military backing to the political alliances and avoided unequivocal defeat. To what extent a surge will have the same short-term effect in Afghanistan is the burning question, to which I don't have an answer.
But we need to get out as soon as is practical, because even America, never mind the UK, can't afford to play world policeman anymore. When America had a strong industrial base, it could have done so. Incursions into Pakistan will undermine the Pakistani state rather than support it; a political solution will involve some form of compromise with uncongenial Islamic social systems.
At least we have learned to stop talking about liberal democracy. Not much comfort in this situation, but the West is becoming a little more attuned to the political, cultural, demographic and economic realities.
Showing posts with label death of the west. Show all posts
Showing posts with label death of the west. Show all posts
Tuesday, 31 March 2009
Economic man vs Political man
My blog of yesterday is really about the disconnect between on the one side "the man is an economic individual" theory of the world, shared by neo-classical economics and the humanitarianism lobby, and the "man is a political animal" theory of Aristotle. The "man is a political animal" theory was dominant of most of western history and is pretty much obvious to everyone apart from liberals.
From the economic individualism perspective, the fact that China with its billion-strong population and ever-more dominant production-based economy, is simply a relatively poor country, because individual incomes are lower than in the West. From the political animal perspective, China is simply a very powerful country, possibly more powerful than the United States in the economic arena due to its holding of American reserves and very real status as factory to the world. It is a little like the United States saying to Scandinavians, who have a higher per-capita income than Americans, that the US should be treated as a relatively poor country rather than a superpower.
From the economic individualism perspective, the fact that China with its billion-strong population and ever-more dominant production-based economy, is simply a relatively poor country, because individual incomes are lower than in the West. From the political animal perspective, China is simply a very powerful country, possibly more powerful than the United States in the economic arena due to its holding of American reserves and very real status as factory to the world. It is a little like the United States saying to Scandinavians, who have a higher per-capita income than Americans, that the US should be treated as a relatively poor country rather than a superpower.
Monday, 30 March 2009
China, bank manager for the US
The Chinese ambassador to the UK has appeared yesterday on the Andrew Marr show (20/3/08) and today (29/03/08) on Channel 4 news, interviewed by John Snow. She was at pains to say that China was still a developing country, that China's dollar reserves are not very much given the number of Chinese people - $1000 or £1000 (I forget which, but it didn't sound like much) per person. No need to worry: China is still poor and is just trying to make its way in the world.
Yet I have blogged recently on the Chinese monopolising of raw materials for industrial production and remarked on the obvious fact that with industrial capacity and trade surpluses comes economic and military power as well as influence. More important than China's increasing strength is our increasing weakness: the lack of ability to pay our way, the lack of a production-based economy leading to impoverishment and a loss of independence, even basic security. In my inexperience as a political blogger, I thought the new phase of China's influence over the US was new, given America's immense debts and financial troubles.
Not so. Paul Craig Roberts, and others no doubt, made this clear two years ago in August 2007. He argued even then that China's holding of American reserves meant that the US had no influence on China, that the Chinese could precipitate a dollar crisis; that offshoring has eroded American living standards and pushed up deficits, and that America is as dependent on Chinese imports as it is for imported oil. The media don't discuss it; economists adhere blindly to Free Trade orthodoxy.
How can the West have been so stupid? Well, a drunkard will justify his drinking binges by various rationalisations. We cling to the notion that there is a privileged developed world and a (formerly oppressed) less privileged developing world, including China, that Free Trade leads people out of poverty, that trade reduces tensions, helps to create a better, more unified future. The West, by leading on trade liberalisation, is helping to save the needy. They rationalise our indebtedness as a kind of post-imperial largesse for the world's poor.
The weakness of the US and most of Europe should be apparent; an aging population, a debt-based economy and no signs of addiction to consumption abating; social decay; an inability to protect our borders; the military capacity of many European countries is laughable; those countries with a military budget are struggling to pay for it. Yet white guilt and one-world ideology has led us to a belief that our liberal trade policies are helping save the world. Why not save ourselves?
We are in denial. the US and Europe are in terminal decline. Maybe Africa is still poor enough for us to continuing patronising that resource-rich and demographically vital continent, although I wouldn't be suprised if Africans were richer than Europeans in 30 or 40 years. But the Chinese have already surpassed us; by raising the idea of a new reserve currency, they are telling the US that they veto US decision making, even while the Chinese ambassador in London, on being asked about trade imbalances, tells us that China is still a developing country. She is just passing the drunk another drink.
Yet I have blogged recently on the Chinese monopolising of raw materials for industrial production and remarked on the obvious fact that with industrial capacity and trade surpluses comes economic and military power as well as influence. More important than China's increasing strength is our increasing weakness: the lack of ability to pay our way, the lack of a production-based economy leading to impoverishment and a loss of independence, even basic security. In my inexperience as a political blogger, I thought the new phase of China's influence over the US was new, given America's immense debts and financial troubles.
Not so. Paul Craig Roberts, and others no doubt, made this clear two years ago in August 2007. He argued even then that China's holding of American reserves meant that the US had no influence on China, that the Chinese could precipitate a dollar crisis; that offshoring has eroded American living standards and pushed up deficits, and that America is as dependent on Chinese imports as it is for imported oil. The media don't discuss it; economists adhere blindly to Free Trade orthodoxy.
How can the West have been so stupid? Well, a drunkard will justify his drinking binges by various rationalisations. We cling to the notion that there is a privileged developed world and a (formerly oppressed) less privileged developing world, including China, that Free Trade leads people out of poverty, that trade reduces tensions, helps to create a better, more unified future. The West, by leading on trade liberalisation, is helping to save the needy. They rationalise our indebtedness as a kind of post-imperial largesse for the world's poor.
The weakness of the US and most of Europe should be apparent; an aging population, a debt-based economy and no signs of addiction to consumption abating; social decay; an inability to protect our borders; the military capacity of many European countries is laughable; those countries with a military budget are struggling to pay for it. Yet white guilt and one-world ideology has led us to a belief that our liberal trade policies are helping save the world. Why not save ourselves?
We are in denial. the US and Europe are in terminal decline. Maybe Africa is still poor enough for us to continuing patronising that resource-rich and demographically vital continent, although I wouldn't be suprised if Africans were richer than Europeans in 30 or 40 years. But the Chinese have already surpassed us; by raising the idea of a new reserve currency, they are telling the US that they veto US decision making, even while the Chinese ambassador in London, on being asked about trade imbalances, tells us that China is still a developing country. She is just passing the drunk another drink.
Friday, 27 March 2009
Catholics, the Act of Succession and Evan Harris
Evan Harris, friend to Catholicism, known as Dr Death for his extreme pro-abortion views, wants to scrap the Act of Succession, on the basis that it discriminates against Catholics. This is rather ironic since he believes that Religion (in practice, dissent from failed progressive policies) should give way to "Science" (aka liberal ideology) on matters relating to abortion, euthanasia, the family, education, etc..
We have to put up with the misrepresentation of the Catholic (really the most consistently Conservative) viewpoint on social issues such as the family, abortion, sex education and euthansia; these views are either ignored, or ridiculed. We have the attack on faith-based schooling in the name of social cohesion and British values. Like most people, I don't want teenagers or pre-teenagers to receive that trojan-horse, a value-free education on sex and be lectured on the easy availability of contraception,emergency contraception
I would like my children to be educated in the Catholic faith, and be brought up in a Christian environment; such a truly liberal education would help protect them from the culture of death promoted by a combination of Government policy, liberal dogma and commercial profit - and Dr. Harris. Yet, I am supposed to care about the Act of Succession. In any case, liberal morality is destroying the West. The Death of the West really does matter and the Catholic church is fighting it. But I digress.
Returning to the issue, our concern should be the Constitution of Britain, not treating Catholics as yet another minority to be used as a wedge for a liberal attack on our traditions. By "reforming" the Act of Succession, you tinker with the constitution, and in the process may weaken the monarchy, which is no doubt the real intention. It doesn't make any difference to the lives of Catholics, except to make another spiteful and otherwise pointless gesture against the traditions of this country. It of courses matters a lot to the left because that is their stock-in-trade. They say it is an anomaly. So? History is full of anomalies, they are part of our past, the settlement handed down to us by our ancestors - which it is much easier to destroy than to replace. There is a lot of ideology here but no injustice?
Cardinal Keith O' Brien calls it "state-sponsored sectarianism". I guess from a West-Scotland perspective, he could be forgiven for this statement, given the Catholic and Protestants divisions there; but attacking the monarcy won't do much to improve community tensions, as far as I can see. Interestingly, he is referred to as a "critic" rather than by name by BBC Radio 4. Though Cardinal O' Brien is to the left of the Government on nuclear disarmament, immigration and other issues, he was recently demonised by the left for his robust pro-life remarks. For the left, being pro-abortion is an article offaithpolicy-based evidence
The government won't back the private members bill because it is a constitutional quagmire; but true to the jacobin leanings of New Labour, Gordon Brown "is in discussions with the palace", is worried about "exclusion" and says that "there shouldn't be discrimination". His role as progressive world leader means that he must at least pay lip service to this faux equality and diversity issue.
We have to put up with the misrepresentation of the Catholic (really the most consistently Conservative) viewpoint on social issues such as the family, abortion, sex education and euthansia; these views are either ignored, or ridiculed. We have the attack on faith-based schooling in the name of social cohesion and British values. Like most people, I don't want teenagers or pre-teenagers to receive that trojan-horse, a value-free education on sex and be lectured on the easy availability of contraception,
I would like my children to be educated in the Catholic faith, and be brought up in a Christian environment; such a truly liberal education would help protect them from the culture of death promoted by a combination of Government policy, liberal dogma and commercial profit - and Dr. Harris. Yet, I am supposed to care about the Act of Succession. In any case, liberal morality is destroying the West. The Death of the West really does matter and the Catholic church is fighting it. But I digress.
Returning to the issue, our concern should be the Constitution of Britain, not treating Catholics as yet another minority to be used as a wedge for a liberal attack on our traditions. By "reforming" the Act of Succession, you tinker with the constitution, and in the process may weaken the monarchy, which is no doubt the real intention. It doesn't make any difference to the lives of Catholics, except to make another spiteful and otherwise pointless gesture against the traditions of this country. It of courses matters a lot to the left because that is their stock-in-trade. They say it is an anomaly. So? History is full of anomalies, they are part of our past, the settlement handed down to us by our ancestors - which it is much easier to destroy than to replace. There is a lot of ideology here but no injustice?
Cardinal Keith O' Brien calls it "state-sponsored sectarianism". I guess from a West-Scotland perspective, he could be forgiven for this statement, given the Catholic and Protestants divisions there; but attacking the monarcy won't do much to improve community tensions, as far as I can see. Interestingly, he is referred to as a "critic" rather than by name by BBC Radio 4. Though Cardinal O' Brien is to the left of the Government on nuclear disarmament, immigration and other issues, he was recently demonised by the left for his robust pro-life remarks. For the left, being pro-abortion is an article of
The government won't back the private members bill because it is a constitutional quagmire; but true to the jacobin leanings of New Labour, Gordon Brown "is in discussions with the palace", is worried about "exclusion" and says that "there shouldn't be discrimination". His role as progressive world leader means that he must at least pay lip service to this faux equality and diversity issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
