Obama fails to see the ramifications

Last blog post for today, I'm kinda done.

Obama and Europe

This article from the London times chronicles the concerns of Obama's administration with the conservatives in England not to accept certain issues in the Lisbon Treaty. The treaty, aimed at a stronger centralization of Europe, would not necessarily be a bad thing for American's to oppose at this time. The coalition of the willing in Iraq and Afgahnistan is mainly made up of British forces. (Aside from our own) If Europe gets a longer seated President, and it happens to be one not favorable to American war interest, we could see our military assistance abroad diminish. Perhaps after the wars are over, a strong centralized Europe will be a good thing as it will ease communication between the United States and Europe, but right now with the liberal attitude demonstrated by much of Europe, we need all the help we can currently get.

Bush Third Term

More fuel to the fire

Europe needs the American muscle it needed during WWI and WWII

It seems like the Europeans agree with me that we need a strong dollar. While they say that a strong dollar will help the Americans, it is more than likely a ploy to help them. While we disagree on why we need a strong dollar (I am looking out for American interests while they look out for their own) the fact that we need a strong dollar is a sentiment we both agree on. While Brazil has raised taxes on foreign capital, and the Canadians have talked down their dollar, both have seen the strength of their currencies decline. This is good for them as both are reliant on exports for survival. As stated in class by I can't remember who, the United States as the most advanced nation in the world no longer is an export machine. We cannot assume that a devalued dollar will help us in the way that devalued foreign currencies help their respective nations.

Europe appears to be dreading and suffering from a weak US dollar. They fear a snowball effect of a declining dollar as much as I do. Sarkozy is bitching about falling French exports, but in terms of American economics, who cares?

Bush Third Term

Fuel for today's thought

This is why I want a strong dollar.

The discussion in class today made me feel like I was on an island. A desert island with only John Twomey. And lets face it, if it came down to it and we needed to eat one another to survive, I'd have a tough time taking down John. Anyway, if you take a glance at the article posted above, the reasons for the dollar staying strong are evident. There is no cause to assume that just because the economic thought indicates that our export levels would rise if the dollar fell. If it falls it gives the opposition to bolster their native industries rather than promoting ours. While I support rate rises in order to bolster the dollar, I don't want it to be an absolute necessity in order to offset inflation. It needs to happen on our own terms, and needs to be advertised as such in order to keep the world faith in the dollar. Like I said in class, a weak dollar lowers our purchasing power internationally, and that begets more weakness. We are, or were in a good position to stay ahead of the curve by having a strong dollar, but if we fall behind and rely on foreign investment to increase our exports, we have to play catch up to the rest of the world economies. This is to say that we need to rely on foreign countries bolstering our economy instead of the United States doing the same to other states.

Bush Third Term.

WWIII

A couple of links for you on the ongoing conflict escalations in Iran and Pakistan.

From the New York Times: Iran blames American's

From the Financial Times: Pakistan's escalation


Personally, I always thought we would need to be more concerned with the Chinese and Pakistanis fighting over Kashmir, instead now we need to be extremely concerned with a rouge nation attempting to obtain nuclear weapons getting into an armed conflict with an already unstable but established nuclear power.

Starting with the first article from the New York Times, what else would we expect. Since the statement from the Iranian government that claims they have documents linking both American and Pakistani involvement to the terrorist attacks that killed several high ranking Iranian military officials was aired on a STATE RUN newscast, how are we to know if this accusation is true? The American, British and Pakistani governments have all come out to deny this, and the Islamic extremist group Jundallah has claimed responsibility. While the American and British governments are capable of such an act, the likelihood that they were in slim. All of the facts point to a false claim by the Iranian government, but can we blame them for this. At a time when there is a full scale war about to erupt in neighboring Pakistan, and global pressure spearheaded by the United States to cease and desist in its quest for a nuclear arsenal, the full support of the Iranian people in their government is crucial. The rally around the flag anomaly that creates a massive wave of support for the government after an attack should be played out in full by the Iranian government. Given the already negative view of the United States in Iran, who else better to try to pin it on. The United States has done the same thing in the past. After 9/11, Bush's approval ratings soared due to a rallying around the flag. Using that tremendous support of the American public the invasion of Afghanistan was pushed through. Similarly, after the attack on Pearl Harbor sparking United States involvement in the WWII, the public support for war with both Japan and Germany was astoundingly high. The major difference between the United States and Iran? We don't lie about our intentions. (Open to interpretation). Propaganda was a tool of the Soviets, and it appears that it is a tool of Iran. (See previous post to see if the Soviets are making a comeback.)

The reality of this situation is if it is not contained quickly, an escalation of massive proportions could occur, and American involvement in Iran might not just be necessary, but rather intervention in Iran and Pakistan to preserve global order. (Looking at you China and Russia for some help here.)

Bush Third Term

If they want it back, I say I'm the new Joe McCarthy

Striking story from the New York Times. Normally, I wouldn't even glance at this paper given its liberal slants, but this article peaked my interest.

From Russia with suck

While it is a generally accepted world view that Putin still runs Russia with an iron fist, despite no longer being president. (Speaking of which, why do they need a president and a prime minister?) However, the recently stated views of high ranking Russian government officials (all members of United Russia) that they wish to learn from the Chinese communist party how to use the one party system to put a stranglehold on the economy and other areas. If this doesn't send alarm bells ringing in everyone's head, maybe when a new Soviet Union emerges people will listen. There already exists a powerful figurehead, a staple of the Soviet Union while it held significant power, and now with the goal of the powerful United Russia to tighten its grip on the economy even more, what is to stop it from reverting back to some of the Soviet ideals. While the article makes me nervous, it also makes me red with rage at the naivete of the author, a Clifford Levy, when he states, "In truth, the Russians express no desire to return to Communism as a far-reaching Marxist-Leninist ideology." How can he know this? There is only one person in the world who knows what view the Russian government will take, and that is Putin. This man obviously has no concept of the realist perspective of foreign policy relations. We need to act quickly on this, (not militarily in the classic realist sense, but more socially and economically) in order to secure our security and interests across the globe from a potential new Soviet World Order.

The best remedy for this would be a revival of McCarthyism. I'm the perfect one for the job. I would have thrived during the Cold War. Instilling fear in the hearts of Americans, yelling about Commies. Awesome.

Bush Third Term

I Been Saying It

Wow. Talk about a putting a big one in the win column for the conservatives. This just keeps getting better and better. From the outset, fiscal conservatives have bashed the stimulus and bailouts as being detrimental to the American economy overall. Yeah, it saved some defunct car manufacturers in Detroit, but what about the rest of the nation. Now, as the dollar loses its reserve status to the yen and the euro, we risk losing our foothold atop the proverbial fiscal food pyramid. Expectations shape the global economic scene more than anything, and with perception of the United States dollar and general economy as weak and potentially unstable, expectations could snowball sending into a deep spiral downward on the way to an economic flatline. However, Bernanke is in a tough spot, faced with rejuvenating the domestic American economy and losing major ground internationally. Sucks to be him. Since the stimulus money is already out there, I say stop the printing presses, raise some rates and let those with money spend it and save the dollar. I don't want to be a 21st century Zaire, with black lines over the face Clinton on the one million dollar bill. Actually, I'm alright with lines over Clinton, just not the two million dollar bill part.

Yay Obama

Hopefully the development of a more multilateral Fire Policy will be just the change in rhetoric from the Bush Administrations fight fire with fire policy.

Bush Third Term. (Seriously)

Appeasement be damned.

It's Not Going to Happen Anytime Soon...

In the spirit of brotherly love and admiration the our President has generated following his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance, or lack there of, fresh out of our Cold War adversaries comes this promising news.

Russian's Not helping Obama.

The Russian's maintaining that they reserve the right to make preemptive strikes publicly is a black eye on Obama's ambitious nuclear agenda. As the article states, the outdated Russian military is not reliable enough to ensure the Russian nations security. As a result they must rely on the hefty nuclear stockpile. What Obama apparently doesn't realize, is that with the exception of the United States, most other countries are in the same boat. Our military is the only one large enough and technologically equipped enough to ensure our safety without a large amount of nuclear weapons. If Russia, one of the largest military powers in the world is not willing to even take the option of preemptive nuclear strike off the table, how the hell will countries like Israel and the like be expected to reduce nuclear weapons. I realize that it must start with us, but a little help would be nice.

Uh Oh

This spells trouble.

The privilege of an American trade deficit could be ending. What I can't figure out is how you can end American dollar supremacy through speculation of a new currency arising in the unstable Middle East. For that matter, how can you end dollar supremacy for new oil deals. Oh wait, the new speculative currency, combined with the rising Yuan, and the oil existing in the states that are planning a new currency make expectations on the dollar increasingly dismal. We're screwed.

Bush third term
Ian Reid