Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Trayvon Martin: George Zimmerman Claims Second Victim | Main | On To Supreme Justice! »

March 28, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e20168e9555c1c970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Obama's War - Out Of Afghanistan:

Comments

Steve

What exactly was Obama expecting the outcome of the surge in Afg to be? Would a 3rd Bush/Cheney administration have ordered the surge? It might have been that Obama was hoping for the 20% chance the Taliban could be driven from the country and he could claim a victory that Bush/Cheney could not achieve.

Steve

Republicans are terrible on foreign policy. Siding with Israel against the Palestinians. Troops in South Korea. Combat operations in Afg. The Navy patroling foreign sea lanes. All of which cost a lot of money, put our people at great risk, enable foreign powers to shirk their responsibilities, raise the chance of blowback and does not make us more safe.

NK

Steve- you make the erroneous assumtion that 'Bam had some rational thought process about Afghan. he didn't; to him Afghan was an anti-Bush talking point. 'Bam has uselessly killed 1,288 US troops in Afghan since he took office; USELESSLY because he had no plan for what to do and how to finish it. By January 2013, 'Bam would have killed about 1,500 great Americans, then he'll hand the mess over to the Repub POTUS. Those young Americans were killed by a poseur and his media lackeys.

Steve

Consider the issue of US troops in South Korea. The government of the North actually gets some legitimacy in the eyes of Korean people from its claim that the North is free of foreign troops and is self reliant. By the US withdrawing all of its troops we actually raise the pressure on the North to change its ways.

Steve

"...'Bam has uselessly killed 1,288 US troops in Afghan since he took office; USELESSLY because he had no plan for what to do and how to finish it. ..."

That is my thinking also. Or, Obama is just so overwhelmed by the desire to demonstrate superiority to Bush/Cheney that he cannot let his mind consider those who have to pay the price for his failed policy.

NK

US troops in ROK may be an unnecessary expense-- but the ROK government requests we maintain a military presence and defers much of the US cost. That deterence is the cost of appeasing the Kim Hermit Kingdom. It's not a disaster like 'Bam's negligence in Afghan or his missle defense surrender to Vlad the Empaler, or his appeasing the Mullahs. THOSE are disasters, not deterence in the Korean peninsula.

NK

Steve-- it's simpler than that; 'Bam is a poseur and a muppet.

Steve

Here is an IAMA on Reddit yesterday by a soldier who was shot up by an Afg army soldier and is recovering now in the US.

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/rfwrc/i_was_shot_3_times_by_an_afghan_national_army_guy/

Note he deleted his account after the AMA. You can read all of his replies here:

http://www.reddit.com/user/GunnedDown

Pofarmer

So, there are ignorant libs in Korea, too, who could have guessed?

We never should have surged in Afghanistan. The military didn't want it, it couldn't work, and I think most everybody knew it. The Dim's just wanted to fight the "good war" when the smart thing was to stay the hell out, as much as possible, which was the Bush plan. Iraq never "took away from" the Afghanistan war, because it was never planned to be much of a war.

Steve

Another first hand report from Afg on Reddit.
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/re237/iama_usaf_medic_deployed_with_the_army_in_afg/

( reddit IAMAs can be very informative. )

Pofarmer

After all the crying of "Bush didn't have a plan in Iraq", which he clearly did, until State jumped into the middle of it, where's the crying of "Obama didn't have a plan in Afghanistan," which he clearly doesn't.

Pofarmer

Steve, you are going to have a hard time if you think you need to convince folks here the surge in Afghanistan was a good idea. It was a horrible idea.

As far as patrolling sea lanes, who else would you propose do it? Do you think it's a coincidence there is more world trade now, and safer, than at any other time in history with the U.S. patrolling most shipping Channels? We have done that since the countries inception, it's not a new development.

Steve

"... where's the crying of "Obama didn't have a plan in Afghanistan," which he clearly doesn't. ..."

ok, fine. But what is the Romney plan? From the sound of his heated reply to what Obama was whispering to Medvedev the other day, it looks like Romney thinks Russia should once again be the focal point of US FP.

Pofarmer

whoops, was a bad idea.

Pofarmer

You're gonna have a real hard time if you want to get somebody to defend Romney, as well.

AliceH

I imagine that after his election, Obama will have more flexibility wrt our goals in Afghanistan.

So glad my nephew completed his tour there and was able to return (physically) safe. Not all in his unit were so fortunate. ABO-2012.

Steve

"... Do you think it's a coincidence there is more world trade now, and safer, than at any other time in history with the U.S. patrolling most shipping Channels? ..."

I actually think the US relies too much on foreign trade. And we are less secure with our manufacturers located in China than domestically.

NK

Po-- I'll defend Romney- he's adopted traditional (Reagan on) repub foreign policy points (US is a special nation, needs to be a strong economic and military power, US interests never subservient to UN etc) details to follow after sworn in.

narciso

I don't know, may be his dithering on the counterinsurgency strtegy, undermining Karzai
(although we see he does that fairly easily on his own) using less than the requisite number of forces, using Hastings as a chiv against
MacChrystal, maybe that had a little to do why
the plan didn't work, that's just IMHO.

Captain Hate

We never should have surged in Afghanistan

Whether or not we should have, by doing it with far less than the recommended level of troops surely guaranteed its failure. This assumes that El JEFe wanted it to succeed in the first place which is problematic when you consider his 2008 statement that even considering the Iraq surge's results he still would oppose it.

Ignatz

--It might have been that Obama was hoping for the 20% chance the Taliban could be driven from the country and he could claim a victory that Bush/Cheney could not achieve.--

No. Barry knew he had to look tough even though he also knew he was going to pull out (Like I needed a reminder of that ad with Michelle asking "are you in?" Yuck.) and so like NK says he tossed a few thousand sausages into the grinder to inoculate himself against the charge of being a softy on terror.

Pofarmer

The U.S. is still the largest manufacturer in the world, by a large margin.

Steve

"... You're gonna have a real hard time if you want to get somebody to defend Romney, as well. ..."

ok. What about the republicans in Congress? They are silent on Afg. The Sainted Paul Ryan promises to keep defense spending high in his budget plan. That budget plan of his is also much praised by the WSJ editorial page. ( btw, the Ryan plan does not bring spending in line with revenue for like another 20 years. )

MarkO

Oh my. There goes the good war.

Captain Hate

I actually think the US relies too much on foreign trade

Why do you think that?

Steve

"... The U.S. is still the largest manufacturer in the world, by a large margin. ..."

What do we make?

Steve

"... I actually think the US relies too much on foreign trade

Why do you think that? ..."

I think it is better for average people when products are produced domestically. I think there is a relationship between wide disparities of income in a society and its reliance on immigration and foreign trade.

Ignatz

Hey CH,
Here's a Mega McCanz joke for you from the comments section of the American Spectator;

Q: What is the difference between the Panama Canal and Meghan McCAin??

A: The Canal is described as a Busy Ditch.

Ignatz

--What do we make?--

Cars, airplanes, lumber, heavy equipment, motorcycles, agricultural produce, tanks, aircraft carriers and about probably well over a million other things large, small and in between.

Captain Hate

I think it is better for average people when products are produced domestically. I think there is a relationship between wide disparities of income in a society and its reliance on immigration and foreign trade.

There's no evidence for that and this attitude does economic harm when practiced by the dumbbells in Congress in pandering to constituents. I hope China keeps banging that green energy monkey to see how that works out.

Captain Hate

What do we make?

Software.

Steve

"... There's no evidence for that and this attitude does economic harm when practiced by the dumbbells in Congress in pandering to constituents. ..."

They can pander away to me. The US was very prosperous after WWII when immigration was low and domestic manufacturing was high. Raising tariffs on imports from China also raises needed revenue to the US treasury.

daddy

OT

Beautiful new photo from our Cassini spacecraft of the The jets of the Saturnian Moon Enceladus.

The jets are coming from the unusual geographic area on Enceladus's south pole, known as The Tiger Stripes.

Captain Hate

Raising tariffs on imports from China also raises needed revenue to the US treasury.

How does that help anybody other than those dependent on government. Are you Pat Buchanan?

Ignatz

--Raising tariffs on imports from China also raises needed revenue to the US treasury.--

No doubt about it.
Go look up a graph of the exploding federal revenues after Messrs Smoot and Hawley got their way.

narciso

Well there is the annoying detail that much of the world's industry was out of commission at least for the first decade.

Ignatz

--The US was very prosperous after WWII when immigration was low and domestic manufacturing was high.--

I'm starting to warm up to this Steve guy.
If we just used our arsenal of democracy to reduce the rest of the world to the state it was in after WWII we'd be on easy street again.

daddy

Opening line from an oped by the Editors of the New York Times:

"In ruling on the constitutionality of requiring most Americans to obtain health insurance, the Supreme Court faces a central test: whether it will recognize limits on its own authority to overturn well-founded acts of Congress."

What in the hell is "well founded" about ObamaCare?

What in the hell is "well founded" about a Bill that "had to be passed in order to know what was in it?"

Steve

"... How does that help anybody other than those dependent on government. Are you Pat Buchanan? ..."

Pat rocks! Mostly guessing, but I think pre income tax the US government was funded by tariff revenue. Many of working age on government benefits today actually have a case to make that because of hyper specialization and global trade, there is nothing of value that they can produce, and therefore they need the handout.

Dave (in MA)
Raising tariffs on imports from China also raises needed revenue to the US treasury. How does that help anybody other than those dependent on government. Are you Pat Buchanan?
He did put "Siding with Israel against the Palestinians" at the top of his list of reasons why he thinks Republicans are bad on foreign policy, but he forgot to throw in some stuff about "New York bankers".
Ignatz

--whether it will recognize limits on its own authority to overturn well-founded acts of Congress--

The question of course is whether it is "well founded", but then logic has never impeded a NYT oped, has it?

Steve

"... Go look up a graph of the exploding federal revenues after Messrs Smoot and Hawley got their way. ..."

as I understand my Milton Friedman, the depression was caused by the fed policies of the day.

Steve

"... Well there is the annoying detail that much of the world's industry was out of commission at least for the first decade. ..."

right. But it shows you do not need global trade to grow an economy. Heck, global trade was likely nil during WWII and the US was producing huge quantities of material to fight the war with.

Ignatz

Monetarism has been largely discredited, though Milton Friedman was right on many specific issues and a great champion of freedom.
And if you're gonna quote a guy in support of your theory you might want one who supported tariffs, one of which Milton most assuredly was not.

Captain Hate

there is nothing of value that they can produce, and therefore they need the handout

Don't you think it's the responsibility of citizens to find something useful to do with their time and make money? I'm sure there were a lot of buggy whip manufacturers with sob stories to tell about how that mean Henry Ford put them out of business. And if you're so concerned about manufacturing jobs in this country, maybe you'd figure out why the cost of doing business here is making it too difficult to compete; yet I've seen no indication of that in your comments.

MarkO

"Well founded" has no meaning to me. The question is simple, does the bill exceed Congress's Constitutional power? The Wise Latina showed she may have empathy but she's an idiot. Not even the liberals on the Court accepted the "tax" argument.

There is wide-spread fear among the progressives and it manifests itself in these types of stories that start to blame the Court for the bill's weaknesses.

I also read a great exchange in which the actual cost shifting of the bill was admitted to be placed on the backs of the young and healthy, the very ones the democrats claim to be free riding.


Steve

"... He did put "Siding with Israel against the Palestinians" at the top of his list of reasons why he thinks Republicans are bad on foreign policy, ..."

Why exactly should the US side with any group in the Mideast? True, the Yiddish people deserve the right to live in peace. They are more than capable of defending themselves.
http://www.amazon.com/Invention-Jewish-People-Shlomo-Sand/dp/1844674223/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1332943925&sr=8-2

Thomas Collins

The brutal reality of the situation, which reality applies whether one is a so-called realist, hawk, dove, eagle, boll weevil or some other class of creature in foreign policy, is that if we are perceived as wesk in Central Asia, jihadists, whether under the rubric of al-Qaeda or some other name, will strengthen itself and will be nurtured by one or more Central Asian governments. This reality doesn't necessarily mean we try to convert Afghanistan or any other country into a constitutional democracy. It does mean we must conduct ourselves in a manner the puts fear in any government that harbors terrorists. I think we are currently missing the mark on this measure. Last time, missing the mark meant airplanes flying into buildings. Next time, it will be worse.

Tom Maguire
We never should have surged in Afghanistan. The military didn't want it, it couldn't work, and I think most everybody knew it.

I don't remember it that way. My recollection is that Obama dithered for months before acceding to 30,000 troops when 40,000 had been requested.

Now one might argue that the 40,000 was the number meant to match a mission the military opposed. But I just don't recall the generals howling about a wasted effort.

As a memory check, I also recall that my Official Editorial Position was that the war was probably unwinnable regardless of our leadership but was never going to be won by with an anti-war poseur like Obama.

All checkable, which extends my To-Do list...

Ignatz

--"Well founded" has no meaning to me.--

I took the NYT to mean 'well founded' upon Constitutional authority which of course is the reason laws come to the SCOTUS; for them to decide whether they're well founded.

Thomas Collins

Winning means keeping the sea lanes open, and keeping jihadists from operating in a safe haven. Perhaps the lapse of time of over ten years has dimmed the memory of what not winning means.

Steve

"... Don't you think it's the responsibility of citizens to find something useful to do with their time and make money? ..."

True. I think people also have the right to control their environment. To cut to the point, I think states should be allowed to exit the federal system. Each state should be allowed to set its own immigration and foreign trade policy. What with the way the Feds are debasing the dollar, states should be able to regionalize and have their own currency.

Jack is Back!

By reading steve's comments it is obvious to me that JOM has been targetted by the Ronulans.

Obama wanted a military success like W got with the surge in Iraq and the al-Anbar awakening. He wanted it to be the "good war" where that was achieved. So, he ordered a "surge" but he also reconstructed the "rules of engagement" by listening to the lawyers and not the COIN generals.

What is wrong with Afghanistan is the ROE's, period. The put our troops not just in harm's way but with a target painted in bright colors on their backs. Its silly little things that pro's like Michael Yon have been pointing out for years (i.e the use of small red crosses on medevac choppers and lack of airforce and army cooperation on ground support and medevac, etc.) If you go his website, you can find a litany of FUBAR kind of idiocy by the Afghan surge campaign that is not working except to embolden and straighten the Taliban.

Steve

"... Last time, missing the mark meant airplanes flying into buildings. Next time, it will be worse. ..."

The best way to protect ourselves from another attack is to lower our profile. The less of a presence we have overseas, the less the jihadists will notice and think of us. It is a fact that both attacks on the WTC were retaliation against the US siding with Israel against the Palestinians.

MarkO

Iggy, I feel sure that the NYT chose the phrase purposefully to imply that the measure was a reasonable response to a national problem, not a Constitutional act. As the not so Wise Latina said, "[W]hat percentage of the American people who took their son or daughter to an emergency room and that child was turned away because the parent didn't have insurance — do you think there's a large percentage of the American population who would stand for the death of that child"

Of course, the answer to that question is none. No one is turned away. Duh.

Porchlight

JOM been invaded by morons. And I don't mean the good Ace kind.

Steve

"... What is wrong with Afghanistan is the ROE's, period. The put our troops not just in harm's way but with a target painted in bright colors on their backs. ..."

Even if the Taliban are defeated and go into hiding, what does that accomplish for the US? Once we leave are you predicting the Taliban will not return? And if they do or do not, how is the US any more or less safe?

Pofarmer

Wow, TM comes on to smack me down, and I've only been back commenting for a day and a half. I feel special, somehow.

Porchlight

I'm glad you're back, Pofarmer.

NK

TomM@10:17-- I have no doubt that the JOM 'official position' in 2009 is what you say it was. My personal winger position was that Bush/Cheney were wise to limit the US footprint in Afghan, leave the Afghan policing to NATO, and win in Iraq which was strategically more important. We both shared the position that 'bam was a poseur who used Afghan as an anti-Bush talking point. So is it the official JOM position that 'Bam snuffed out 1500 beautiful young american lives just for his personal political position? If yes, then you are calling 'Bam an immoral murderer who wasted young loyal soldiers like the Brit General Staff at Galipoli or the French at the Somme. BTW-- I personally believe that.

Thomas Collins

Steve, I couldn't disagree more. Jihadists want to establish a caliphate in a good portion of the world. As the world's strongest power and one devoted to free trade and human freedoms inconsistent with the caliphate, we are a natural target of jihadists. Jihadist goals would remain if the Israeli-Palestinian situation were solved tomorrow. For example, the jihadist attempt to take over Algeria would have occurred without regard to the Israeli-Palestinian situation. The goings-on between jihadists and secularists in Pakistan have nothing to do with Israel and the Palestinians. Jihadist operations throughout the world are to advance jihadist goals, which do not depend on Israel and the Palestinians.

NK

ThomasC@10:40-- BravoZulu (well done)

Steve

"... Jihadists want to establish a caliphate in a good portion of the world. ..."

Muslims have been doing this since the year 700. They are a dangerous foe. But far from unstoppable. ( the meek Hindus were able to stop their advance. ) And it is Europe, Russia and India that are the immediate targets. Let us use our geography to our advantage. Stop immigration. Raise tariffs until our foreign trade is balanced.

narciso

That novel by the Portuguese writer, Dos Santos, I referenced some months ago, Holy
Fury, which features an AQ nuclear plot, has
one of the characters, voicing that view point
TM.

narciso

I meant TC, our nonintervention in Bosnia (from
the mind of Al Midhar and Al Hamzi) and Chechnya weighed more on their minds

matt

Regarding A'stan, all of the above. It was a mess with some hope in '01-02. It was a mess descending into chaos in '03-06. It was a cankerous mess in '07-'08. It was, briefly, a mess with a shot at correction through a surge in '09-'10. It was an undersurged mess in '10-'11. And it is a hopeless mess in '12.

One really doesn't know where to start with how completely f'ed up the whole thing is. The most likely result after a pullout is another civil war. Karzai is a psychotic, corrupt incompetent and there are no real alternatives to take his place.

Michael Yon did a pretty good summary yesterday that captures the complete, evil absurdity of a lot of it.We sent our people in and lost sight of the real mission.

Cecil Turner

It was an undersurged mess in '10-'11. And it is a hopeless mess in '12.

Throw in "too much money" and "too restrictive ROE" as side issues, and I'm in perfect agreement.

mojo

I choose "B" - get the hell out. And be sure to wreck anything above a 14th century tech level as we leave. Let 'em ride around on donkeys and camels while they plot, just don't let 'em have aircraft and cell phones.

NK

Mojo-- sorry that just ignores reality. Everybody forgets way too soon that when the the SFs went into Mullah Omar/AQ's Afghanistan in 01/02 they found operational plans for dirty nuke and chem attacks on the US. Why do you think there was need for IMMEDIATE EI? actionable intel was needed immediately to prevent chem/nuke 9/11s and to save innocents. Leaving Afghan to AQ again, just isn't smart.

Ignatz

--Leaving Afghan to AQ again, just isn't smart.--

But they can't draw up similar plans in, as only a partial list, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Iran, Pakistan or the new Arab Spring caliphates of Libya, Mali, Egypt, Tunisia and coming to a theater near you soon Syria?
Seems to me we're really going to be stretched a might thin after we've occupied half of the known world.

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vnjagvet

I hear echoes of the domino theory. What would Reagan do?

Cecil Turner

Yeah, the real problem is Pakistan, and there's just no will to tackle it (nor am I claiming to have any good strategy).

I R A Darth Aggie

Get the hell out yesterday

And on the way out, tell Karzai best of luck, let us know how it works out for you. And if you or a follow on government allows a terrorist organization to use your country for a training camp again, we'll be back but we won't stay for the nation building.

Stephanie

what is the name of the mulsim woman who fought against social injustice who died last year?

Stephanie

Never mind... got it Ayaan Hirsi Ali... but why did I think she was dead?

pagar

"we aren't going to "win" there."

Not with an Obama Regime that doesn't want America to win.
------------------------------------
Pofarmer, it's good to see you back.

Pofarmer

I suppose possibly I'm relying too much on Tommy Franks assessment of the situation. Use Afghan nationals to route the Taliban and hope for the best. There was never any hope, I think, in his view, of doing much good with extensive troop numbers in country.

jimmyk

Monetarism has been largely discredited

I wouldn't go that far, but even if Friedman were right about the Great Depression, it wouldn't mean that the tariffs didn't make things even worse. Which they did.

Ignatz

--I wouldn't go that far--

Jimmy,
I meant discredited as an overarching economic theory, which I think is a safe statement, at least from my layman's classical-Austrian vantage point.
Certainly many of the particulars of monetarism are sound.

pagar

O/T

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/03/sand-soldiers-of-america/

"You can find out more about Sand Soldiers of America and contribute at its website. SSA has a fundraiser tonight in new Port Richey, Florida."

Might be something for some of our Florida folks that care about our military.

Captain Hate

Never mind... got it Ayaan Hirsi Ali... but why did I think she was dead?

Were you thinking of Neda in Iran?

lyle

I vote e) get the hell out and turn the whole place into a sea of glass.

Cecil Turner
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
F@#kin' A!
narciso

Rashid, who gave us the first real study of the Taliban, has a few interesting insights in his latest tome, he agrees with Matt that Afghanistan was 'neglected in the mid 00s, he
concluded that Obama seriously dissed Karzai,
and thid continued with sacking MacChrystal
who was his only real ally among US Govt officials, and he iluminates the common notion
of most others, the ISI's toxic effect on all involved, he doesn't really come up with a policy though.

Ralph L

Can we go all Jenghis Khan before we leave?

Steve

"... I wouldn't go that far, but even if Friedman were right about the Great Depression, it wouldn't mean that the tariffs didn't make things even worse. Which they did. ..."

another example of an economy growing while it has import restrictions is current day China. I do not see the evidence outside of textbooks that moderate import restrictions harm an economy.

narciso

One problem that Rashid does point out is the army is increasingly more Tadjik and Hazara,
and less Pashtun, I guess that's to be expected, of course one recalls that Abbotabad
where Obama had hung his hat for 6 years, was heavily Hazara.

Ranger

But it shows you do not need global trade to grow an economy. Heck, global trade was likely nil during WWII and the US was producing huge quantities of material to fight the war with.

Where to start. The post WWII boom was based on two things, one was the pent up domestic demand that the lack of consumer goods for 4 years created. The other was massive exports of industrial products to rebuild the shattered econmies of Western Europe. Now, one had nothing to do with global trade, but the other was based entirely on global trade, which the US dominated thanks to the way WWII played out in Europe and Asia.

Also, please understand that the massive production of goods during WWII was possible because a) all domestic consumer production was essentially halted and converted to military production, and b) it was paid for by massive borrowing made possible by the absence of any consumer goods to buy. Also, there was a total suspension of the market economy for the duration of the war.

I knew Ronulans were dumb, but I didn't realise they were that dumb.

Danube of Thought

"I think it is better for average people when products are produced domestically."

Why do you think that, if the same products are available less expensively if manufactured abroad? Why should public policy favor "average people" over those who are not average?

" I think there is a relationship between wide disparities of income in a society and its reliance on immigration and foreign trade."

Why do you think that? Are wide disparities in income bad? If so, why? Is the relationship you describe a causal one?

sbw

Steve: Raise tariffs until our foreign trade is balanced.

Steve, wrong answer. Trade is "balanced" whenever a deal is made.

Please re-read... or read for the first time probably, some Adam Smith. He didn't so much tell you what policies would work as warn you away from those experience had shown would not work.

BTW, he believed modest tariffs could fund government. He knew his stuff. He was, after all, a collector of tariffs.

Steve

"... The post WWII boom was based on two things, one was the pent up domestic demand
"... Why do you think that, if the same products are available less expensively if manufactured abroad? Why should public policy favor "average people" over those who are not average? ..."

I can't disagree with your reasoning. Which is why I think states need more autonomy within the federal system. One state should be allowed to be Ron Paul libertarian, with open borders for immigrations and foreign trade. Another state could be governed based on Pat Buchanan principals of domestic sovereignty. A 3rd would be whatever democrat and occupy wall street people want it to be.

Steve

"... Steve, wrong answer. Trade is "balanced" whenever a deal is made. ..."

Well, the trade is our money for China's manufactured goods. The money in the possession of the Chinese national is then used to buy our land or real estate. The balanced trade is we hand over our raw materials and hard assets in exchange for stuff we no longer have the expertise to make ourselves.

There is simply no evidence that an economy needs to import large amounts of manufactured goods to prosper. Current day China does not do it. The US during and after WWII was highly productive without importing manufactured goods.

sbw

Steve, you appear to be arguing against savings, 401-Ks and the like.

Money in trade is "a player to be named later." Our job is to create an economy based on things people want to buy, not artificial trade barriers that impoverish the locals.

Adam Smith, again. Smart cookie. 'though not taught much in schools anymore and certainly not in Economics. ;-)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon

  • Lee Child, Kindle short story
  • Lee Child
  • Gary Taubes

Traffic

Wilson/Plame