Bush's Achilles heel

Blatham,

It IS more difficult to be dispassionately objective when one is cold and hungry. However, that in no way diminishes the value of truth and right understanding, even to one so afflicted.

While this may or may not be the best of all possible worlds, it is the world we must live in. Understanding it, as it is, remains important.



We should hope that China, Pakistan, India, and Mexico adopt our industrial methods as quickly as possible. On their present courses they will very soon contribute far more pollution to the ecosystem, and at far lower levels of production and wealth. I hope that China continues to prosper, and does so wisely both politically and environmentally.

The economic behavior of countries and groups, such as the U.S., China, the EU, and even Canada will likely remain competitive. So far that model has produced better average living conditions than has the stagnation of inward-looking, isolated societies and economies.

The wealth of the ?'New World' (= the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) far eclipses that of any other region, including Europe, on a per capita basis. On the whole the internal inequities in the distribution of that wealth are less than in most undeveloped areas of the world. Even in the U.S., where much is made of the relative inequities of distribution of wealth, the incomes of the bottom strata economically generally exceed that of the corresponding parts of the great majority of developed nations. Moreover, compared to them we enjoy much greater economic mobility - the stay time at the bottom is on average far less. Certainly improvements can and should be made, but given the levels of immigration we are experiencing I don't see how much change can be accomplished.

I believe the inequities in the development of various areas of the world are a much more serious issue than those within the richest nations, particularly those in the United States. U.S. GDP per capita is 30% higher than that of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, while together we are 40% greater than Western Europe and 4 times that of the former Soviet states. This "New World' enjoys a GDP per capita that is more than 10 times that of the Moslem world, 5 times that of Latin America, almost triple that of Asia, and more than 30 times that of Africa. History has shown us that free trade and movement of capital (what is now called globalization) are far more effective in promoting ends to poverty and pollution than are either government-to-government aid or the socialist command methods that wasted a generation in the third world after WWII.




Well put together and even poetic. Cain's problem was murderous envy, not fierce competition. In our economic lives competition has revealed itself to yield the best overall results with the fewest adverse side effects. Moreover we have found quite a number of ways to mitigate those side effects, while preserving most of the benefits intact. I don't argue this is the best way - only that no one has yet found anything better.

george

There are very good people whom I respect as humanitarians first and economists second that argue pretty compellingly for the benefits accrued to poor nations from free trade. And in fact, I think we in the west reap and consume at rates which are flaggrantly irresponsible (eg fish stocks) and if greater economy is forced upon us, that is not a bad thing. But that some other country has income variance greater than ours provides no moral excuse for the gaps we see here, and which are growing.

Blatham,

Then we evidently agree on the matter of globalization.

Over fishing has occurred as you say. However aquaculture is accounting for a continuing increase in its share of total production, and I suspect, if we are careful and wise enough, we will be able to turn the tide (so to speak) on this aspect of natural resources. To a large degree it is the developing countries that are most wastefully depleting natural resources - mostly because they see few alternatives. Development can offer alternatives. Despite all the controversy over forest conservation for example, the size of the forests in the U.S. has markedly increased in the last 50 years. There are concerns about some tree species, but they too can be solved.

It is not at all clear to me that income disparity is actually growing in the United States. Is this situation worse today than in (say) 1910? I doubt it very much - most data suggest it is decidedly less now. Perhaps there is a ten or twenty trend in the other direction, but it is hardly an issue of the moral proportions you imply, given the accompanying rise in the living standards of all groups during this period.

In any case, what would you propose we do about it? Would you be willing to stifle overall growth in your quest for greater income equality? The Soviet experiment yielded much more uniform levels of income - poverty for all- but it came at the cost of freedom and, by the way, yielded grotesque examples of serious industrial pollution and wasteful exploitation of natural resources.

oh come on george....you are smarter than to try and suggest to anyone, even yourself, that there are but two options - Soviet vs US style capitalism.

I think what 9/11 has done is to put us back in that old cold war mind set, two diametrically opposed options. In part because a large part and particularly the more conservative part of the population feels comfortable with that kind of thinking. that is the way we were brought up.

Acquiunt (one day, you really must change your name to something more intutitive)

No, it's not partisanship. It's the purposeful forwarding of an illogic. And these bastards in this administration do it all the time (and george did it above).

From the present Atlantic online, from a piece by James Fallows annoting the recent SOTU address...Fallows' notes in red and brackets.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/sotu-address.htm

I love it.

One thing we can all hope for, given this family and its history (don't forget Pappy's boy and the Savings and Loan debacle), is that the Shrub will repeat an incident comparable to Pappy's scanner gaffe . . . dog knows, the Shrub is certainly highly qualified to put his foot in it . . .

For him now, it's a race to get reelected before the disaster of his administration for us all sinks in with the most of those who will actually go out to vote. He has to be prayin' people don't become aware of the effects of the unfunded No Child mandate, that the joblessness does not become too widespread, that no more corporate scandals, or embarrassing incidents in the energy industry or Halliburton come up . . .

Blatham, it is algonquian (Native American language). It is the aboriginal place name of a town near where I was born and means "at the fishing place under the hill".

Blatham,

What is it then that you do advocate in response to the several ills you have teed up on this thread? While I (tentatively) accept your rejection of both choices in the capitalist/socialist bifurcation, I don't understand what alternative you would favor. I am not aware of any other relevant models extant in this world.

Acq (hope you'll allow the abbreviated)

Thanks. That's my first Algonquian word ('Algonquin' was the spelling in our school books).

Blatham, these days everyone is in a tizzy over the correct spelling/pronunciation of non English words in the language, Inca is now Inka, Peking is now Beijing, Algonquin is perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned.

Conservatives
ELDER STATESMEN OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CALL ON AMERICANS TO VOTE BUSH OUT OF OFFICE IN NOVEMBER

http://www.cnionline.org /

WASHINGTON, Jan.30: Two elder statesmen of the Republican Party urged American voters to turn President George W. Bush out of office in November if he fails to reject the neoconservative policies of unilateral war and intervention in dealing with international terrorism.



Losing Our National Moorings and Waging War without End
Findley told the Capitol Hill audience: "I have never worried about America's future - until now - but we are in a deep hole in Iraq... In the name of national security, the president has brought about fundamental, revolutionary changes that threaten our national moorings."
In carrying out his policies, "Bush isolates America from common undertakings with time-tested allies. He trivializes the United Nations and violates its charter... while at home, he stoops to bigoted measures based on race and national origin, tramples of civil liberties, and spreads anxiety, fear, and shame throughout the land."

Livid against America for the Unquestioning Alliance with Israel
"Why do anti-American protests rage worldwide?" Findley asked. "The answer: People worldwide, especially in Iraq and Palestine, are livid over grievances against America."


"In an exquisite example of hypocrisy, with one hand the president tries to convince Iraqi Arabs that he offers them democracy and freedom while, with the other, he supports Israel's denial of these very rights to Palestinian Arabs next door."

As a Republican, Findley felt "no joy in making this case against the president. He may be sincere in his stewardship, but he is wrong - dead wrong - in the direction he is taking our country. I fear that he is manipulated by underlings who are primarily motivated by concerns for oil and Israel."