Why We Must Beat Obama
Introduction
There's been a lot of talk about the list of likely Republican Presidential candidates for 2012 being disappointing. I know I'm disappointed: I see no one who I would describe as even remotely "libertarian" who is not simultaneously isolationist to the point of trying to deny the existence of the rest of the world beyond American ( Read more... )
There's been a lot of talk about the list of likely Republican Presidential candidates for 2012 being disappointing. I know I'm disappointed: I see no one who I would describe as even remotely "libertarian" who is not simultaneously isolationist to the point of trying to deny the existence of the rest of the world beyond American ( Read more... )
Ia) Oil exploration is a complex issue to understand. At current, approximately *half* the oil drill rigs in the world are engaged in drilling in the US. That's primarily because the US is one of the few oil rich nations that has historically been a relatively business friendly location, the regulation has been strict, but consistent, the fields have had prety strong guarantees against nationalization. None of that is true anymore. Given that, I suspect that the vast majority of new oilfield service contracts will be done in other parts of the world. In short, the mechanisms for recovery in this sector have been destroyed. Probably permanently, or at least for decades.
IB) Obamas economic whims and their consequences will extend far far beyond his term of office. Regardless of whether or not he is re-elected, it has now been made clear that such blatant manipulation and dictatorial behaviour is *possible* in the US. Business will not forget that. Business will continue to be cautious for the forseeable future, and the desireability of doing business in the US as compared to say... China, is reduced. Permanently.
IC) Obama notwithstanding, that deficit spending will be profoundly difficult to avoid. Consider, there are 5 approximately equal (for extremely simplistic purposes) expenditures of government. Military, Social security (including medicare), HHS (welfare), Treasury (including interest on debt), and everything else. We can afford 2.5 of those sectors. That means that if we were to cut out the military *totally*, cut out the welfare state (exempting elder services) *totally*, we'd *still* be running a deficit. Halving spending in all departments will similarly not be possible. Halve the military and you get WW3, halve social security and you have committed political suicide, halve welfare and you have race riots, halve treasury and you have defaulted on your bonds. We can talk about raising taxes, but honestly, that isn't going to work, all it will do is hasten the transfer of our business to China.
There will be no lasting or real economic recovery. Period. Full stop. It is a mathematical certainty that the US standard of living will fall over the next decades. This is guaranteed by our trade deficits, budget deficits, the growth of china and india, the decline of us oil production, etcetera. There is simply *no way* that a job continues indefinitely to pay $15/hr in the US while there remain chinese willing to do the work for $3/day. That means that we will continue to outsource entire *sectors* of our production related jobs. Which in turn, means that the exports that are necessary to produce a real recovery cannot realistically happen.
The *only* way in which it is *remotely* probable that we will see an economic "recovery" is to fight and *handily win* ww3. Even that will work only insofar as we are able, during that war, to destroy the industrial capacity of our competitors without taking such damage ourselves. At current, there is no possibility of our fighting and winning WW3. Our armed forces, while impressive, are not rigged for it, and rigging them for it would involve a commitment from the civilian population that cannot plausibly be produced. We could, at present, prevent enemy forces from landing on our shores, but invade *China*? or Saudi? or Russia? No way, no day. We are also exceptionally vulnerable to spies and saboteurs. I have been saying for decades that 20 disciplined, intelligent men willing to die for their cause, and funded to the tune of a few tens of thousands each could reduce the US to economic standstill, martial law, and food riots in 2 weeks. It remains true today.
Reply
III. I believe that China is, at this moment, making deliberate preparations to fight a war against the US. Cutting their reserves of US currency and stockpiling strategic resources is *exactly* what I would do in their position if I were planning to fight that fight. Do you *really* think that it's probable that you can give your enemy a 2 year headstart on war preparations and still have a chance of winning? Because I am sceptical.
In short... Unless the populace grows up very very well and very very quickly, we are pretty screwed.
Reply
If we repudiate Obama in 2012, our allies may -- and probably will -- forgive us for electing him in the first place. Not if we re-elect him.
Do you *really* think that it's probable that you can give your enemy a 2 year headstart on war preparations and still have a chance of winning?
We did in World War II. Now, do I think that we can give the enemy a six year headstart and win? No, and my existence proof is that that's what Britain and France did in World War II, and they didn't so much "win" as have the good fortune to be our friends and thus be carried to victory by us.
We have no "America" on which to fall back. So we must not re-elect Obama.
Reply
Perhaps. Whatever damage is done will be greater if Obama has two terms in which to do it. We still have unused oil in the ground, lots of natural gas, and great expanses of coal and oil shale. We also have a heck of a lot of uranium. I think that if we get a reasonably competent President in 2013, one who quickly sets aside the drilling moratoria and (even better) much of the regulatory obstacles to new nuclear plant construction, we may turn around our energy situation by the 2020's.
Assuming no new "Obama" between then and now, and by an "Obama" I mean something considerably worse than the run-of-the-mill Democratic President. Obama is the worst President we've seen in over a century. Most Democrats wouldn't govern as badly.
Regardless of whether or not he is re-elected, it has now been made clear that such blatant manipulation and dictatorial behaviour is *possible* in the US. Business will not forget that. Business will continue to be cautious for the forseeable future, and the desireability of doing business in the US as compared to say... China, is reduced. Permanently.
Sadly, this will be true for a while no matter what happens in 2012. However, if we promptly reject Obama, making him a one-term President, businessmen may see him as an aberration. If we re-elect him, confirming his tyrannies, he may be viewed as more of a permanent condition.
Obama notwithstanding, that deficit spending will be profoundly difficult to avoid.
Yes, but Obama isn't trying to "avoid" it. He's piling it on, and grinning like a fool as he does so. He obviously thinks it's a good idea. We can't do anything about the deficit until we chuck Obama over the side. We can start to adopt saner national economic policies once we no longer have Obama at the wheel.
There will be no lasting or real economic recovery. Period. Full stop. It is a mathematical certainty that the US standard of living will fall over the next decades.
Relative standard of living, yes. Absolute standard of living, not necessarily so. There are technological factors which can greatly increase our standard of living over the next few decades, if we have the infrastructure of energy generation and distribution necessary to power them.
Of course, if we keep Obama in the Oval Office, we won't -- we'll watch from the sidelines as the rest of the world adopts advanced nuclear reactors and nanotech-based chemical industry and builds space elevators and begins mining the Asteroid Belt. And scrimp and save to buy the least of the fruits of these wonders -- wonders, incidentally, of which we were the first to conceive.
Oh, and I think you underestimate our civilian population. They're not the cowards you imagine. They just need better leadership.
Reply
And therein lies the problem. The bulk of the people are so badly indoctrinated in one way or another that there is *no chance* of anyone who pronotes doing what actually must be done being elected dog catcher. The instant they step in teh ring, they will instantly be *reviled* by both sides.
For a prime example, look at the smearing job that was done to Palin Or is being done as we speak to West, or Bachman. How could a *real* leader get *elected*? *Why* would anyone in their right mind step into the meat grinder that is US politics?
Reply
It would take about a hundred and fifty.
The plans have been published a few times - on a few variations on how to do it.
A friend of mine states that it demonstrates the bankruptcy of the soviet/chinese/muslim systems that they have never been able to put such a hundred and fifty men in place.
Reply
Leave a comment