WSJ: Mexico Retaliates

Oakman

Rob, it has occurred to me that we are battling should against possible. It's an argument I deal with every day since I truly believe that a libertarian society is the only rational alternative to the cycle of republic-democracy-dictatorship-republic-etc. that seems to have been the choice of civilized humans for quite some time. When i think of our world's and/or our nation's problems I know what I think should be the answer, but I am also aware of what can be the answer. Right now you are saying, we should keep our word, and I cannot argue with that. When I said that as soon as one can no longer count on contracts as being enforceable, one of the basic premises of our society is broken, I meant it. I am saying only that given the way the rest of the world works, that may be a recipe for a national death by a thousand cuts. And I am asking, in a world of oath-breakers, can we afford to play by the rules? Heinlein's answer was: "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you." Obama's answer seems to be it doesn't matter how you play the game; it only matters whether you win or lose.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Rob Graham

Yeah, but I still like Heinlein's answer better than Obama's. I think Heinlein's point was that somebody has to take the initiative or nothing will ever improve. I think we're capable of being a cut above the rest, and just want us to live up to our potential. I'm not saying we should willingly suffer fools and the thousand cuts they deliver, but rather that we should play rough, but honest and aboveboard. Given the politicians that are running the show, that is probably a pretty silly hope on my part. Like all the rest Obama talked a much better line than he's walking. Too bad. I happen to think that how one plays the game may be the most important thing of all, but then that comes from an old fashioned sense of honor and it's importance to how men and nations should behave. You hardly ever hear that word mentioned any more. I just wish I thought there was any serious contemplation of outcomes and consequences involved in most of the crap going on these days, and provoking our neighbors with the NAFTA duplicity is just a tiny example.

Oakman

Rob Graham wrote:

but rather that we should play rough, but honest and aboveboard.

I agree, but I immediately have to wonder what the political life-expectancy of an administration that followed that precept would be. When you think of the people this country elects, I am afraid we'll never see anyone in power again who will value honesty or integrity or honor. It would seem the prevailing opinion is Stan's: "Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing."

Rob Graham wrote:

I just wish I thought there was any serious contemplation of outcomes and consequences involved in most of the crap going on these days, and provoking our neighbors with the NAFTA duplicity is just a tiny example.

Well, it's cold comfort, but I suspect that once inflation reaches 20% @ year - on its way to 100% @ year, what our southern neighbors think of us won't matter a lot. But I confess I will smile a bit when they start to nationalize all those factories the internationals built for them. Not because it'd be good for the US, but because I can say, 'I told you so," one more time. ;)

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Rob Graham

Oakman wrote:

but I suspect that once inflation reaches 20% @ year - on its way to 100% @ year, what our southern neighbors think of us won't matter a lot.

I don't worry too much about them either. I do worry what the Chinese will do about us monetizing their Treasury bond holdings into worthless paper. I suspect they didn't really see that as a likely outcome when they bought them. The same probably goes for some Saudi royalty, but they don't have the wherwithall to show us just how pissed they might be. Do you suppose it will be hard to adapt to Mandarin as the official language?

Oakman

Rob Graham wrote:

Do you suppose it will be hard to adapt to Mandarin as the official language?

I let you whippersnappers worry about that. Babel Fish can probably teach me everything I need to know. I mean, how hard is it to learn to say, "fuck you and the horse you rode in on?" in any language?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Stan Shannon

Oakman wrote:

It would seem the prevailing opinion is Stan's: "Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing."

That has always been the prevailing opinion.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

That has always been the prevailing opinion.

Perhaps so, more's the pity.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Mike Gaskey

73Zeppelin wrote:

You googled that, didn't you?

:-\ good call.

Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.

Rob Graham

Oakman wrote:

I mean, how hard is it to learn to say, "f*** you and the horse you rode in on?" in any language?

Yeah, that's pretty much a single digit statement in any language... I don't think I qualify for the whippersnapper part any more, having reached the age of 26.

Stan Shannon

Oakman wrote:

Perhaps so, more's the pity.

Yeah, because its really too bad that we don't live in a world controlled by slave owning Nazis.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Oakman

Rob Graham wrote:

I don't think I qualify for the whippersnapper part any more, having reached the age of 26.

I can remember when I was that age. I wondered last night; had you seen the need to learn Mandarin coming from finacial or military conquest? I assumed the latter, probably just because that's the way my mind works.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

because its really too bad that we don't live in a world controlled by slave owning Nazis.

You've taught me better than that. I have learned the world is being conquered by slave-owning Commies.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Rob Graham

Your assumption would be correct. With the economy collapsing and their investments being infated into vapor, i think the chinese will need a distraction for their masses to avoid open rebellion. We make a convenient target for that, and likely will be disarming our military soon anyway, as funds and attention are diverted to the social projects more valued by the current batch of politicians in power. We should be a relative pushover by the second half of the 2nd Obama administration (if not the first administration).

Rob Graham

Stan Shannon wrote:

That has always been the prevailing opinion.

Actually, I think the self loathing part is a rather new phenomenon that appeared in the late 1960's or early 1970's right alongside LSD.

Oakman

Rob Graham wrote:

i think the chinese will need a distraction for their masses to avoid open rebellion.

I'm sure you read that they are spending 585 billion on their own massive stimulus package, but the Chinese government agreed to provide only $170 billion of the funds. So they need to raise over 400,000 billion from other sources - like their foreign investment reserve. They hold about 400,000 billion in T-bills. If I were the Chinese finance minister, I'd be thinking that now, while a lot of countries actually are fleeing to T-bills, would be a good time to convert that into cash to fund their own TARP program. A perfect excuse to stop being the U.S.'s banker, just as the US starts looking more and more like the morning after a drunken sailor spending spree. And then they can politely refuse to buy any more of our debt and watch our interest rate skyrocket while their economy remains basically stable. A ballsier guy than Obama might actually think of attacking China as a distraction for the masses.

Rob Graham wrote:

We should be a relative pushover by the second half of the 2nd Obama administration

Hard to believe that we had over 500,000 men in uniform in Vietnam, isn't it? - and enough more stateside that no-one ever had to do a second tour unless he chose to. :sigh: Obama may decide to go whole-hog and just outsource the army to Blackwater.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Rob Graham

Oakman wrote:

Obama may decide to go whole-hog and just outsource the army to Blackwater.

I think he's more likely just to assert peace has come at last, and shut down the whole business. Hopefully leaving D.C. utterly defenseless. so they hold $400T (400,000B) In treasuries, and only need $400B to fund their stimulus spending? They ought to be able to find takers for $400B, but i would be real surprised if they could unload the whole 400T without really driving down the price. I think they really find themselves between a rock and a hard place, and even if things work out rosily for the US, we won't be selling them many more T bills. What' may be being overlooked is that the only way China can be sure of pulling its own economy out of the dumpster is to find different (more reliable) customers for its cheap goods. They're almost big enough to be self sufficient, but lack enough oil to just close the borders and go it alone. There is Russia of course, right next door, lots of oil and gas, and no current strong friends. If I were Putin I would be very worried.

Synaptrik

Rob Graham wrote:

Hopefully leaving D.C. utterly defenseless.

So, your wish is that we are defenseless and get invaded because you disagree with the current president's policy choices? :omg:

This statement is false

Rob Graham

No invasion required. Jefferson was right. [edit] Oh, and what "we" are you talking about? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?[/edit]

Synaptrik

I can't believe you are really that dense, but I'll explain anyway. :rolleyes: The topic is Chinese invasion. Your statement regarding Obama's policies: "Hopefully leaving DC defenseless" implies you are hoping the Chinese can invade. We, is we Americans, you are an American right? No mouse required, unless you're volunteering.

This statement is false

Oakman

Rob Graham wrote:

There is Russia of course, right next door, lots of oil and gas, and no current strong friends.

And India's oil reserves are forecast to run out in 2016. They could come north through all the stans just to make Putin's life real interesting, and do a little payback on the way. We should collaborate on a future-history book.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface