A Mendacious Triangular Trade (Part XI)
So, here in the States we find ourselves in a tricky situation. In the midst of a putsch by the most populous nation on the globe to replace us as the economic superpower, we have set out to democratize the middle-east by military -- i.e., costly -- means, an undertaking that would have to be successful in choking off oil to China or play no part in defending the nation against the real threat.
Quite coincidentally, the local political scene has been co-opted by a two pronged attack from the far right. One jaw of the pincers hinges its forces on so-called "growth," the other on an equally misnamed appeal to our "moral sensibilities." It seems to have been completely overlooked by the American people that these two forces are perennial opposites. The driving force of economic growth has always been greed, every man for himself in a struggle for wealth. Religious man has (admittedly less noticeably) centered his inmost desire on caritas, or agape, lovingly translated in First Corinthians 13 as charity. Hard to see how those opposites could have gotten together, but they have, and that's a fact.
I will leave analysis of how this happened for another time. I wish today to focus on one of the unintended, and possibly beneficial, consequences of this strange alliance. I say "possibly beneficial" only in the long term sense. In the short term -- the next three to ten years -- the policies currently being pursued by America's leadership are almost certain to result in painful sacrifices, especially on the American middle and lower classes. The "growth" mongers seem irretrievably committed to the libertarian dream, a government that functions only as an army, a court, and a police force. But because the other side of the alliance remains entrenched in the entitlements status quo, the drive of the "greeds" toward "no more taxes" will collide with a rock-hard base of nondiscretionary spending commitments. Unless the libertarians give up the chase -- which I doubt -- virtual bankruptcy will result.
To urge the slide toward America's capitulation, the Chinese will (in a couple of years) begin to restructure their currency reserves, shifting from dollars to euros (or the yen, which has firmed as the Japanese economy recovered). To do this, the Chinese will not merely refrain from buying U. S. debt, but will begin slowly to sell off the bonds they currently hold. This will pressure the dollar to the point interest rates offered to the U. S. central bank will be forced to climb. When that happens, the American economy will stagnate, shiver, and collapse. It will not help a bit at that point that sanity returns to the government. The damage will be done, and in the real "new American century," the U. S. will have been reduced to a third rate power. [The Brits will fare better. They have more experience with economic warfare than we do.]
But as I say, the alliance between greed and charity may have a beneficial effect in the long run. If the religious right finally catches on to what is expected of it in this game, it will use its holy pulpit to assuage the fears and pains of the faithful, enabling the great masses of the marginally employed to bear the depreciation of their wages which is, at the bottom line, to be the one great hope for the American economy. The Chinese skirmish line cannot hold if the difference between American and Chinese wages narrows so significantly that shipping costs can make up the difference in the cost of Chinese- and American-made goods.
American policy should, therefore, in the meanwhile focus on steeling the American workforce for the hard times that are bound to come, while at the same time, doing all it can peacefully to increase the level of unrest among the wage earners in China. The U. S. government might also seek to balance its spending with its income. If that means more taxes and fewer entitlements, so be it. The stakes are too high for quibbling on the details of the defense.
True, in the on-going meanwhile (where we all live), if matters proceed as they are for too much longer, the American manufacturing infrastructure will have shriveled almost to non-exixtence. But in the long run the American economy will be improved by the leveling of wages to something near the world median. That will be painful, especially if the government and its sacerdotal allies do not see their duty clearly and do it. If the ruling powers could see fit to come clean with the American people about the real threats they are facing, giving up idealistic ventures into real-politik, the nation might even survive as a world power.
We shall see.
[This completes my sometimes diverted analysis of "a mendacious triangular trade."]
Quite coincidentally, the local political scene has been co-opted by a two pronged attack from the far right. One jaw of the pincers hinges its forces on so-called "growth," the other on an equally misnamed appeal to our "moral sensibilities." It seems to have been completely overlooked by the American people that these two forces are perennial opposites. The driving force of economic growth has always been greed, every man for himself in a struggle for wealth. Religious man has (admittedly less noticeably) centered his inmost desire on caritas, or agape, lovingly translated in First Corinthians 13 as charity. Hard to see how those opposites could have gotten together, but they have, and that's a fact.
I will leave analysis of how this happened for another time. I wish today to focus on one of the unintended, and possibly beneficial, consequences of this strange alliance. I say "possibly beneficial" only in the long term sense. In the short term -- the next three to ten years -- the policies currently being pursued by America's leadership are almost certain to result in painful sacrifices, especially on the American middle and lower classes. The "growth" mongers seem irretrievably committed to the libertarian dream, a government that functions only as an army, a court, and a police force. But because the other side of the alliance remains entrenched in the entitlements status quo, the drive of the "greeds" toward "no more taxes" will collide with a rock-hard base of nondiscretionary spending commitments. Unless the libertarians give up the chase -- which I doubt -- virtual bankruptcy will result.
To urge the slide toward America's capitulation, the Chinese will (in a couple of years) begin to restructure their currency reserves, shifting from dollars to euros (or the yen, which has firmed as the Japanese economy recovered). To do this, the Chinese will not merely refrain from buying U. S. debt, but will begin slowly to sell off the bonds they currently hold. This will pressure the dollar to the point interest rates offered to the U. S. central bank will be forced to climb. When that happens, the American economy will stagnate, shiver, and collapse. It will not help a bit at that point that sanity returns to the government. The damage will be done, and in the real "new American century," the U. S. will have been reduced to a third rate power. [The Brits will fare better. They have more experience with economic warfare than we do.]
But as I say, the alliance between greed and charity may have a beneficial effect in the long run. If the religious right finally catches on to what is expected of it in this game, it will use its holy pulpit to assuage the fears and pains of the faithful, enabling the great masses of the marginally employed to bear the depreciation of their wages which is, at the bottom line, to be the one great hope for the American economy. The Chinese skirmish line cannot hold if the difference between American and Chinese wages narrows so significantly that shipping costs can make up the difference in the cost of Chinese- and American-made goods.
American policy should, therefore, in the meanwhile focus on steeling the American workforce for the hard times that are bound to come, while at the same time, doing all it can peacefully to increase the level of unrest among the wage earners in China. The U. S. government might also seek to balance its spending with its income. If that means more taxes and fewer entitlements, so be it. The stakes are too high for quibbling on the details of the defense.
True, in the on-going meanwhile (where we all live), if matters proceed as they are for too much longer, the American manufacturing infrastructure will have shriveled almost to non-exixtence. But in the long run the American economy will be improved by the leveling of wages to something near the world median. That will be painful, especially if the government and its sacerdotal allies do not see their duty clearly and do it. If the ruling powers could see fit to come clean with the American people about the real threats they are facing, giving up idealistic ventures into real-politik, the nation might even survive as a world power.
We shall see.
[This completes my sometimes diverted analysis of "a mendacious triangular trade."]
posted by Benedict S. at 11:59 AM
7 Comments:
Survival comes in the form of two questions that every individual needs to answer for his or herself: What do I need; and what can I do without? While Chinese bankers purchase debt the American citizen piles into indebtedness with increasingly more expensive cars that need increasingly more expensive gas to park in front of thier increasingly more expensive houses. In the meantime we are told that inflation is being held in check by lower interest rates which are lowering the incomes of mom and pop who invested in long term CDs as a means to fund thier retirements. Houses that cost onehundredthousand dollars two years ago are going for 250k today, and they are selling them like hotcakes to individuals who are taking out 100% interest-only loans because they are banking on the assumption that thier income can only go up as the cost of thier "investment"(you and I used to call them homes) skyrockets.Woe to the common man when the bubble bursts,it sure ain't gonna be pretty, daddy-o!
Capitalist greed can only be satisfied by consumer greed.
Greed demolishes equity. Simply, you cannot have both unrestrained
greed and equality. I will be Anonymous Two
For anon two: Please, if you can, tell me what you mean by "equality." The wealthy are clearly not "equal before the law." Nor are the dull equal to the gifted. Hard world, "equality."
Anon Two here,I was Anon Two that commented on your rights blog,thanks for the compliment.
People are not
equal...at least not in a 'static' sense. And for whatever reasons, some
societies have developed faster than others creating not just 'first,
second, or third world' demarcation...but some notion between 'advanced' and
'primitive' as the more accurate terms [IMHO].
If this is true, then I think it is important that we recognize this.
'Advanced' cultures should not allow their integrity to be maimed through
notions of equality...even as the desire would be to help more
'primitive...or less advanced' cultures along. The hegemony of today's
academia sees things on a more egalitarian concept where 'Centrism' is posed
as a 'bad thing'; thusly giving creedence to, say, 'AFro centrism' being as
worthy and acceptable as 'EuroCentrism' etc. If these new studies are
correct, that population character is a fundamental element of why some
cultures advance while others don't [in comparison], then today's thinking
is leading us off into a wrong direction, allowing the 'advanced' cultures
of, say, Europe and the so called 'Western world' be 'deluded' with
primitiveness of that third world. Instead of seeing the world
'unrealistically' as 'equal partners' perhaps the better perspective would
be one as 'Big Brother' for the west.
Anon-Two. I'm confused a little. I think my compliment was aimed at the person who would be "anon one." But no problem. You raise a good point about so-called multiculturalism. The notion that all cultures are not equal is clearly a function of the measuring rod used in the comparison. If the judgment is made on the basis of the number of indoor toilets, one culture would clearly be superior to another. But if the measure is made on the basis of how well human excrementa are recycled into the soil (all other considerations being denied), then the ranking would be reversed.
On the otherhand, those of the intelligentsia who see all cultures as equal have fallen victim to that boogaboo of twentieth century philosophy, the notion that no such thing as knowledge is possible. In that sense, those who believe in supernatural causes and effects are just as likely to be correct as those who apply their trust more rationally. And looking at the obverse of this mistake, those who believe that their version of supernaturalist causes is the right one, and all others false, are taking the backdoor to multiculturalism of the worst sort. Given that no form of supernaturalism can be verified by human means, any claim to the vailidity of one such scheme in effect justifies them all.
Of course, having to rely on reason to resolve conflicts among unreasoning people is bound to be a steep demand. That difficulty has perhaps driven most of the "Big Brother" approaches to the problem.
I would love to read your comments to the next day's blog, especially whether is is natural or supernatural for men to establish rights agreements among themselves.
Benedict S. ,Anon Two responding.Sorry I didn't explain myself and confused you.Looks like no blog on Easter,I will be looking forward to your next blog.
Post a Comment
<< Home