Hi Billy,
On Apr 25, 2012, at 1:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> Saying all this my guess is that your next rejoinder, if any, will once
>> again completely ignore national security as a basic consideration.
>>
>> Which is exactly what you did. You immediately returned to economic
>> argument. As if you said to me, "I don't want to pay for insurance because
>> my finances will be far better off not making payments to
>> Liberty Mutual or some other company."
>
Sigh.
I think the problem -- we seem to have this a lot -- is that the topic seems to
keep shifting under our feet. I respond to what I see as one part of your
argument, then you feel I'm ignoring (what I consider) the other part of your
argument.
If the *only* thing you are talking about is national security, then I think we
agree:
a) national security is generally more important than economic security
b) we need a vibrant economic security to support national security
What we *disagree* about is;
c) -which- industries are essential to national security
d) -what kinds- of protection will product a net security benefit
e.g., when will the gains to national security outweigh (however you
weight them) the economic impact
Right?
I think we have to start talking specifics, since the generalities create more
confusion than enlightenment.
Here's a list of industries where China is displacing the U.S as the market
leader:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/2012/01/24/eight-industries-us-has-lost-to-china/
Which do you think are relevant to national security? What measures could we
take that would be a net win?
Two points I should also clarify:
* You're right, if there's vibrant internal competition, then the loss of
foreign competition may not have much of an impact on economic efficiency.
* I agree that economic interdependence isn't a guarantee of everlasting peace,
and that economic dependence can create all sorts of "soft problems" short of
military weakness.
That said, it is important to define what threat you are trying to defend
against. You can't really prepare for everything, you have to choose which
battles you consider likely, and in which timeframe.
What is your concern:
a) a "Hot War" with China over Taiwan in 2015?
b) Economic blackmail in 2020?
c) A resurgent Africa demanding reparations in 2030?
d) China invading India in 2040?
e) Japan reverting to 1940's imperialism?
Something else? Again, talking in generalities doesn't seem to have gotten us
very far.
>From a National Security perspective, I believe our most pressing need is to
>project American cultural influence -- at least the better aspects of Western
>liberalism -- onto Asia. We need to establish America as the land of
>opportunity and freedom, not a paranoid empire in decline. They may not love
>us, but we need them to at least envy and respect us.
If that's true, then the most important imperative is for America to provide
economic leadership, which requires business innovation. Anything which speeds
up innovation (e.g., higher standards) is good, anything which slows it down
and reduces global competitiveness (e.g., protectionist regulation) is bad.
Obsessively focusing on protecting specific industries or jobs tends to skew
investment in the wrong direction.
Importantly, I define economic innovation as creating societal value, not mere
profit. That implies we need better metrics than GDP, where money spent to cure
a disease caused by pollution counts as "growth."
We need enough military strength to credibly fulfill our commitments to, e.g.
Taiwan and Asia, but I don't expect any direct military confrontation with
China for the next 15 fifteen years. After that, I expect the world to be
fundamentally re-aligned, so there's no point in making predictions.
-- Ernie P.
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
