Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

Isn't that sort of necessary to even have the oil embargo discussions that brought up this idle threat? Oil's fungible, after all.

Sort of. There's always a huge gap between what we say in public versus what we say in private. Plenty of grand, sweeping rhetoric (by all sides, in all countries) is for the nightly news. The private diplomatic lines are where real intentions are communicated.

A great power always tries to dictate terms, its allies usually go along with it in public rhetoric, competing regional powers offer qualified, troubled etc. opposition in public rhetoric, states that are under pressure from the power for whatever reason (bad rogue states when we're the power, good freedom-fighting states when we're not) make loud displays of opposition in their public rhetoric -- so far, all of this is chalk and none of this matters. 98% of the time the "international crisis" is deliberately manufactured for somebody's domestic consumption: sometimes the power's, sometimes the Geopolitical Competitor or the Tinpot Dictator or the Principled Neutral or the Brave Little Nation or whatever the trappings are.

When there is an actual risk of conflict, the handful of people in the world who own important things get concerned. Then the diplomatic channels are where real information is transmitted about how far everybody's actually willing to go. There's still the tactics of negotiation but it's the difference between discussions between private parties (which can be successful) and tub-thumping for the cameras (which almost always ends in a race to the bottom of the gene pool and violence).

The system usually works: deals are cut, a few ladies drop their pearls in horror that we didn't go to the wall for "honor," and then the next crisis is upon us. Actual explosions are failures of information: either communication is poor or information is incomplete or one side just does the math wrong.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

Sort of. There's always a huge gap between what we say in public versus what we say in private. Plenty of grand, sweeping rhetoric (by all sides, in all countries) is for the nightly news. The private diplomatic lines are where real intentions are communicated.

A great power always tries to dictate terms, its allies usually go along with it in public rhetoric, competing regional powers offer qualified, troubled etc. opposition in public rhetoric, states that are under pressure from the power for whatever reason (bad rogue states when we're the power, good freedom-fighting states when we're not) make loud displays of opposition in their public rhetoric -- so far, all of this is chalk and none of this matters. 98% of the time the "international crisis" is deliberately manufactured for somebody's domestic consumption: sometimes the power's, sometimes the Geopolitical Competitor or the Tinpot Dictator or the Principled Neutral or the Brave Little Nation or whatever the trappings are.

When there is an actual risk of conflict, the handful of people in the world who own important things get concerned. Then the diplomatic channels are where real information is transmitted about how far everybody's actually willing to go. There's still the tactics of negotiation but it's the difference between discussions between private parties (which can be successful) and tub-thumping for the cameras (which almost always ends in a race to the bottom of the gene pool and violence).

The system usually works: deals are cut, a few ladies drop their pearls in horror that we didn't go to the wall for "honor," and then the next crisis is upon us. Actual explosions are failures of information: either communication is poor or information is incomplete or one side just does the math wrong.

Maybe. Or maybe your never ending, comprehensive cynicism, especially when it comes to the United States (don't want to be too "political" here) is once again coloring your judgement. We'll see. One thing is true, no matter what: when we (or our interests) are threatened, we must be prepared to respond.

 

[GopherBigGuy911]

Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

The thing with Iran and the threat of blocking the Strait is pretty much a wet fart in reality (it would have negligible affects because it couldn't be sustained).... As said before it would be suicide, but we have to remember who or what we are dealing with. Akmadinggyjihad is a 12er - they believe it is the "god" sworn duty to bring about the chaos and hell to the world so that little leprechaun (12th mhadi -sp) can come out of the well so that "judgment" can begin. He had no problem throwing himself and the Iranian people on the sword if it mean the prophecy is fulfilled.

But the thing with Iran is also not their military "power" it is the vast infrastructure they have at their disposal in Hezbollah and other Islamic Jihaddi groups.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

The thing with Iran and the threat of blocking the Strait is pretty much a wet fart in reality (it would have negligible affects because it couldn't be sustained).... As said before it would be suicide, but we have to remember who or what we are dealing with. Akmadinggyjihad is a 12er - they believe it is the "god" sworn duty to bring about the chaos and hell to the world so that little leprechaun (12th mhadi -sp) can come out of the well so that "judgment" can begin. He had no problem throwing himself and the Iranian people on the sword if it mean the prophecy is fulfilled.

But the thing with Iran is also not their military "power" it is the vast infrastructure they have at their disposal in Hezbollah and other Islamic Jihaddi groups.

But his willingness to die doesn't necessarily infect his military. Yes, plenty of the generals are political. One hopes not all are. We know there has been serious resistance to the regime among citizens. Why not among the professionals in the military? And they almost certainly share the same prejudice professional military guys around the world share: they don't want to have their forces and weapons destroyed in an unwinnable fight against a vastly superior enemy. So the best scenario here would be some sort of coup, coupled with a popular uprising. Not too likely. But possible.

PDRK appointed Kim Jong Il's moron son a "four star general." And one assumes the "miltary first" policy they've followed under Ill (no dead) means some layer of their military infrastructure is dedicated to the regime. How far down does that go? Similarly, Stalin purged "unreliable" officers from the Red Army and came this close to letting Hitler win.

Eventually, Iran must be exposed as the "weak horse." If and when we do that, the influence of the regime will diminish dramatically.

 

[GopherBigGuy911]

Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

But his willingness to die doesn't necessarily infect his military. Yes, plenty of the generals are political. One hopes not all are. We know there has been serious resistance to the regime among citizens. Why not among the professionals in the military? And they almost certainly share the same prejudice professional military guys around the world share: they don't want to have their forces and weapons destroyed in an unwinnable fight against a vastly superior enemy. So the best scenario here would be some sort of coup, coupled with a popular uprising. Not too likely. But possible.

PDRK appointed Kim Jong Il's moron son a "four star general." And one assumes the "miltary first" policy they've followed under Ill (no dead) means some layer of their military infrastructure is dedicated to the regime. How far down does that go? Similarly, Stalin purged "unreliable" officers from the Red Army and came this close to letting Hitler win.

Eventually, Iran must be exposed as the "weak horse." If and when we do that, the influence of the regime will diminish dramatically.

I totally agree.... I must say we had a GOLDEN opportunity for a "peaceful" regime change a couple of years ago, but Obama dithered and many many many people died. There was plenty more the United States and our allies could of done to fully foment a new revolution there. On that note Akmadingyjihad is the community organizer of Iran.... The Mullahs think he nuts (which he is), but he has the overwhelming support of the poor people of Iran. It wasn't the poor people that were part of that missed GOLDEN opportunity it was the middle and upper class that had enough of BS. The poor people of Iran out number the middle and upper class something like 500 - 1.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

I totally agree.... I must say we had a GOLDEN opportunity for a "peaceful" regime change a couple of years ago, but Obama dithered and many many many people died. There was plenty more the United States and our allies could of done to fully foment a new revolution there. On that note Akmadingyjihad is the community organizer of Iran.... The Mullahs think he nuts (which he is), but he has the overwhelming support of the poor people of Iran. It wasn't the poor people that were part of that missed GOLDEN opportunity it was the middle and upper class that had enough of BS. The poor people of Iran out number the middle and upper class something like 500 - 1.

Yes, and the population is very young and probably not all that receptive to public hangings (as opposed to stonings) of women who may or may not have violated their marriage vows. Looking back on it, wouldn't it have been great if one of our embassy marines had shot that pr*ck right in the face, just like bin Laden?

Remember the foreign minister who was on TV night after night during the hostage crisis? Sadegh Ghotbzadeh? Western educated. Well, after the crisis passed, the regime executed him because he knew crazy when he saw it.

 

[GopherBigGuy911]

Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

Yes, and the population is very young and probably not all that receptive to public hangings (as opposed to stonings) of women who may or may not have violated their marriage vows. Looking back on it, wouldn't it have been great if one of our embassy marines had shot that pr*ck right in the face, just like bin Laden?

Remember the foreign minister who was on TV night after night during the hostage crisis? Sadegh Ghotbzadeh? Western educated. Well, after the crisis passed, the regime executed him because he knew crazy when he saw it.

Sorry before my time.... I was born in 81'

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

Sorry before my time.... I was born in 81'

It's a conspiracy I tell ya. Maybe Ron Paul's right. As a result of the hostage crisis, ABC created a program called Nightline. And for over a year, Sadegh was on the air just about every night, trying to put a smiley face on an evil regime. He later changed his mind and paid for it with his life in '82. Surprised you didn't read about it at the time. You were one, right?

 

[joecct]

Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

It's a conspiracy I tell ya. Maybe Ron Paul's right. As a result of the hostage crisis, ABC created a program called Nightline. And for over a year, Sadegh was on the air just about every night, trying to put a smiley face on an evil regime. He later changed his mind and paid for it with his life in '82. Surprised you didn't read about it at the time. You were one, right?

And every night @ 11:30 ET Frank Reynolds would let us know how many days our people were being held hostage.

It was also the birth of the overkill of symbolism by the US Government (at least in my lifetime). It got so bad, I thought the government was going to create a Secretary of Symbolism. The High(Low) lites were:
- The national Christmas tree was not lit
- Yellow ribbons. If you wanted to know the birth of all these different colored ribbons that stand for this or that, it started here. The NFL even decked the Silverdome in a big yellow ribbon for the Super Bowl (tm). You can also blame Tony Orlando and Dawn.
- The President did not leave the White House. In effect, he was being held hostage, too.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

And every night @ 11:30 ET Frank Reynolds would let us know how many days our people were being held hostage.

It was also the birth of the overkill of symbolism by the US Government (at least in my lifetime). It got so bad, I thought the government was going to create a Secretary of Symbolism. The High(Low) lites were:
- The national Christmas tree was not lit
- Yellow ribbons. If you wanted to know the birth of all these different colored ribbons that stand for this or that, it started here. The NFL even decked the Silverdome in a big yellow ribbon for the Super Bowl (tm). You can also blame Tony Orlando and Dawn.
- The President did not leave the White House. In effect, he was being held hostage, too.

President Carter also "symbolically" boycotted the Moscow Olympics to protest Afghanistan. Later, the athletes got invited to the WH. If you had trained your entire life for a once in a lifetime chance to compete in the Olympics, would you figure a burger and beer with Carter was a fair exchange for not going to the Games? It's a wonder some of those kids didn't die of sanctimony.

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

Interesting list, true or not, who knows but the manufacturing stats are scary



#1 Back in 1985, 11 million vehicles were sold in America. In 2009, only 5.4 million vehicles were sold in America.

#2 In 1990, the median age of a vehicle in the United States was just 6.5 years. Today, the median age of a vehicle in the United States is approximately 10 years.

#3 The average price of a gallon of gasoline in 2011 has been $3.50. That is a new all-time record. The previous record was $3.24 in 2008.

#4 The average American household will have spent an astounding $4,155 on gasoline by the time the year is over.

#5 The number of children in the United States without a permanent home has increased by 38 percent since 2007.

#6 A decade ago, the United States was ranked number one in average wealth per adult. By 2010, the United States had fallen to seventh.

#7 The U.S. tax code is now more than 50,000 pages longer than it used to be.

#8 American 15-year-olds do not even rank in the top half of all advanced nations when it comes to math or science literacy.

#9 The United States once had the highest proportion of young adults with post-secondary degrees in the world. Today, the U.S. has fallen to 12th.

#10 After adjusting for inflation, U.S. college students are borrowing about twice as much money as they did a decade ago.

#11 The student loan default rate has nearly doubled since 2005.

#12 Our economy is not producing nearly enough jobs for our college graduates. The percentage of mail carriers with a college degree is now 4 times higher than it was back in 1970.

#13 Our infrastructure was once the envy of the world. Today, U.S. infrastructure is ranked 23rd.

#14 Since December 2007, median household income in the United States has declined by a total of 6.8% once you account for inflation.

#15 Since the year 2000, incomes for U.S. households led by someone between the ages of 25 and 34 have fallen by about 12 percent after you adjust for inflation.

#16 According to U.S. Representative Betty Sutton, America has lost an average of 15 manufacturing facilities a day over the last 10 years. During 2010 it got even worse. Last year, an average of 23 manufacturing facilities a day shut down in the United States.

#17 In all, more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities in the United States have shut down since 2001.

#18 The United States has lost a staggering 32 percent of its manufacturing jobs since the year 2000.

#19 Manufacturing employment in the U.S. computer industry was actually lower in 2010 than it was in 1975.

#20 In 1959, manufacturing represented 28 percent of all U.S. economic output. In 2008, it represented only 11.5 percent.

#21 The television manufacturing industry began in the United States. So how many televisions are manufactured in the United States today? According to Princeton University economist Alan S. Blinder, the grand total is zero.

#22 The U.S. trade deficit with China in 2010 was 27 times larger than it was back in 1990.

#23 The Economic Policy Institute says that since 2001 America has lost approximately 2.8 million jobs due to our trade deficit with China alone.

#24 According to one study, between 1969 and 2009 the median wages earned by American men between the ages of 30 and 50 dropped by 27 percent after you account for inflation.

#25 Back in 1980, less than 30% of all jobs in the United States were low income jobs. Today, more than 40% of all jobs in the United States are low income jobs.

#26 The size of the economy in India is projected to surpass the size of the U.S. economy by the year 2050.

#27 One prominent economist believes that the Chinese economy will be three times larger than the U.S. economy by the year 2040.

#28 In 2001, the United States ranked fourth in the world in per capita broadband Internet use. Today it ranks 15th.

#29 Back in the year 2000, 11.3% of all Americans were living in poverty. Today, 15.1% of all Americans are living in poverty.

#30 Last year, 2.6 million more Americans dropped into poverty. That was the largest increase that we have seen since the U.S. government began keeping statistics on this back in 1959.

#31 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 6.7% of all Americans are living in "extreme poverty", and that is the highest level that has ever been recorded before.

#32 The percentage of children living in poverty in the United States increased from 16.9 percent in 2006 to nearly 22 percent in 2010. In the UK and in France the child poverty rate is well under 10 percent.

#33 As I wrote about the other day, since 2007 the number of children living in poverty in the state of California has increased by 30 percent.

#34 A staggering 48.5% of all Americans live in a household that receives some form of government benefits. Back in 1983, that number was below 30 percent.

#35 Back in 1965, only one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid. Today, one out of every 6 Americans is on Medicaid.

#36 Between 1991 and 2007 the number of Americans between the ages of 65 and 74 that filed for bankruptcy rose by a staggering 178 percent.

#37 Today, the "too big to fail" banks are larger than ever. The total assets of the six largest U.S. banks increased by 39 percent between September 30, 2006 and September 30, 2011.

#38 Since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, the U.S. dollar has lost over 95 percent of its purchasing power.

#39 During the Obama administration, the U.S. government has accumulated more debt than it did from the time that George Washington took office to the time that Bill Clinton took office.

#40 The U.S. national debt is now nearly 15 times larger than it was just 30

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

I have a lot of problems with that list. Most of them have to do with the points comparing education. But I'm not going to get into those.

The one that really irks me is #38. What is the reference point? The 1913 dollar? How does this compare to the Pound, Swiss Franc, etc.? What is the definition of purchasing power?

#28 is misleading and somewhat irrelevant. Broadband exposure does not necessarily equate to a better country. I'd bet the average American uses the internet for educational purposes once a month. Or less. MOre important in the the communication between educational institutions.

The entire manufacturing discussion is somewhat misleading as well. Most companies have either sent the plants overseas (some would argue this isn't a bad thing because it keeps consumer prices down) or have combined facilities and made them more efficient. Where two factories would have been required 40 years ago, one may suffice today with higher output, better quality, and less overhead.

A politician can spew platitudes about keeping manufacturing jobs in the US, but try to tell the same audience that it could lead to double (SWAG) the cost for the average manufactured good, you're going to be met with some resistance.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

I'd bet the average American uses the internet for educational purposes once a month.

Does porn count?

(I guess only if you learn something.)

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

Does porn count?

(I guess only if you learn something.)

I was going to make some comment about that but figured someone else would come up with something better than I could.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

Does porn count?

Only for Computer Science majors.

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

I

#28 is misleading and somewhat irrelevant. Broadband exposure does not necessarily equate to a better country. I'd bet the average American uses the internet for educational purposes once a month. Or less. MOre important in the the communication between educational institutions. .

Not important for small businesses to have broadband? I take it you have broadband where you live, I don't. I finally got a WISP in the last year, its hardly broadband. I run a business out of my house, its not dependant on Broadband but what if I was selling some product, then I probably would be.
There is money being spent around here on a fiber network to get the most populated areas of Maine within reach of the fiber, makes alot of sense to me. Its not just education(and the porn industry ) that uses broadband

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

Not important for small businesses to have broadband? I take it you have broadband where you live, I don't. I finally got a WISP in the last year, its hardly broadband. I run a business out of my house, its not dependant on Broadband but what if I was selling some product, then I probably would be.
There is money being spent around here on a fiber network to get the most populated areas of Maine within reach of the fiber, makes alot of sense to me. Its not just education(and the porn industry ) that uses broadband

I'm not saying it isn't important, I just think it's a terrible metric to base a country's technological place in the world. Especially when you compare just how sparsely populated the US is compared to nearly all other developed countries.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

I'm not saying it isn't important, I just think it's a terrible metric to base a country's technological place in the world. Especially when you compare just how sparsely populated the US is compared to nearly all other developed countries.

Per capita access to broadband would still be a useful metric no matter how sparsely populated a country is, right? This is a rough map of where you would want broadband access:

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

Per capita access to broadband would still be a useful metric no matter how sparsely populated a country is, right? This is a rough map of where you would want broadband access:

Not necessarily. I mean, it could be, but just how does one measure broadband penetration? Who actually has access to a subscriber? Who actually subscribes? It seems that most of the reports I find measure penetration by the number of subscribers per 1,000 households (or some other normalization). I think this is more telling about the socio-economic status of a country rather than their technological ranking.

I would guess that the US is in line with most developed countries on who has access to broadband, but the cost prohibits quite a few. I see this used in quite a few studies to rank countries in their tech status. I wonder if they take into account the actual cost to the consumer for subscription rather than just the subscription price (subsidies, price controls, etc.) In addition, I also wonder about the use of internet cafes in Europe and how those are factored in. You see a hell of a lot of them in Europe while in the US, you see hardly any.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

Every developed economy transitions to services and away from manufacturing. It'll happen in China as well (eventually). It's no different than industrialization replacing agriculture jobs.

As far as that economist predicting China will be tripling our economic output by 2040 (#27), I'd take that bet every day and twice on Sunday. There is no ****ing way their economy will grow that quickly for that length of time. Their GDP would have to hit somewhere around $45T-$50T while ours remains unchanged. If the US economy has any growth at all in that time (and it will), you'll have to add trillions more to their output.

I'm not so sure I'd bet on India passing us by 2050, either. They've got widespread corruption problems over there, and it's already stifling investment.