Ernie :
Let's say I was 40 something. At the time the way I looked at the future
was in terms of how anyone looks at the future at some given point, as
directly related to self interest. This is inescapable.
Suppose I was still teaching college. I know how I would want the future
to look.
Stable, predictable at least to the extent that I would feel secure in my
position,
with specific plans for next year's classes a really good idea since there
would
be a related research agenda and I had better study a whole lot of stuff
for
my Russian history courses, or for my classes in US history or East Asian
history.
Actually, in my 40s I was teaching on board an aircraft carrier. And the
future did
look stable. Until one day and I was on the flight deck and the ship was
overflown
by a long range Russian bomber. Gave me a cold shiver. One press of a
button
and the entire USS Enterprise could be blown to smithereens. The Russian
plane
would be blasted out of the sky, presto, and doubtless hundreds of missles
would
start to rain down on the USSR, but that would do me, now a piece of
carbon,
no good at all.
A few weeks later we were in war games with Japan. Day # 1, all the pilots
returned
from a mission over Okinawa. They were so happy. They had destroyed all of
Japan's military assets on the island. Day # 2, no-one was happy. A
Japanese
sub had just suck the Enterprise.
Gotta tell you, this was sobering.
So much for my lesson plans for next year, or my research agenda.
Being dead has that kind of effect.
--------------------------
OK, here is how I interpret your comments. In 15 years your kids will be
graduating
from HS and entering college. THEN, by God, you will be ready to make your
move
in politics, or whatever. But in the meantime --15 years-- the future
you want
is also the future around which you have made your plans.
Apple will continue to be successful. You will advance up the corporate
totem pole.
The policies and politics that allow for Apple's successes, and your's,
necessarily
are what you predict ( forecast ) because anything else and all your plans
would
be irrelevant and a waste of time.
This is anything but some sort of "sin." It is completely understandable
and, for
all anyone can say, that may be exactly how the next 15 years will play
out.
To use my metaphor, no need to buy insurance.
However, this is another example of Rosy Scenario. Rosy really is a
temptress.
She ensnares many good men with her charms --"it will all work out the way
you are planning, it will be as you expect, the trajectory you have in
mind for
your career and family and etc will come true, no need to be concerned."
I will make a wild guess : Almost 3000 people in the WTC on 9/11 had
almost
those exact same ideas on that fateful day. Why should anything not work
out
as they expected ? They all had great jobs and worked in an environment
that, for NY, could not be better. Their prospects for the future looked
terrific. What could possibly go wrong ? The only rational predictions
for any of them to make would be similar to your plans,
in 15 years everything will be even better. That is what
is sensible to bet on, nothing else is likely.
Trouble is that those people are all dead now.
-----------------------------------------------------
Since the end of the Viet Nam war in 1975 the US has been involved in the
following wars :
1960-1975 _Vietnam War_
(http://americanhistory.about.com/od/vietnam/tp/vietnam-war.htm) United States
and South Vietnam vs. North Vietnam 1961
_Bay of Pigs Invasion_
(http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/historyofthecaribbean/a/09bayofpigs.htm)
United States vs. Cuba 1983 Grenada United
States Intervention 1989 US Invasion of Panama
United States vs. Panama 1990-1991 _Persian Gulf War_
(http://americanhistory.about.com/cs/persiangulfwar/)
United States and Coalition Forces vs. Iraq 1995-1996 Intervention in
Bosnia and Herzegovina United States as part of NATO acted peacekeepers in
former Yugoslavia 2001 _Invasion of Afghanistan_
(http://americanhistory.about.com/library/blreasonwar.htm)
United States and Coalition Forces vs. the Taliban regime in Afghanistan
to fight terrorism. 2003 _Invasion of Iraq_
(http://americanhistory.about.com/library/blreasonwar.htm)
United States and Coalition Forces vs. Iraq
1983 Grenada
1989 Panama
1990-1991 Gulf War vs Iraq, followed by years of no fly zone actions
1995-1996 US action in Bosnia / Herzegovina
2001-2012 Afghanistan
2003-2011 Iraq
1975 - 2012 = 37 years
Years of war = 17 years
Roughly 3+ years of peace for each 2 years of war.
Plus all kinds of lesser actions.
You seem to envision a peaceful future. I do not envision a peaceful
future at all.
Granted, it may seem peaceful and secure at the moment, but there is
absolutely
no guarantee. And while it may be only a remote possibility that we will
see
military action on US soil in the next 15 years, no-one can be sure, and
even if
there isn't, suppose you were at Ft Hood a while ago, or at LAX also
recently,
or in Seattle, etc, and happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong
time ?
We have been lucky, that plus the effects of Homeland Security measures,
but who says there won't be a bomb attack in Houston or Chicago or San Jose
in the 15 years ahead ?
But maybe more relevant, there are all the effects of war, like what a t
rillion $$
in costs for Iraq have done to the US economy.
Like I said, laissez faire economics is like a juggler with 5 balls in the
air.
All is well until one ball goes awry, and then you get a mess.
---------------------------------------------------
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?
Answer : None of the Above. More along the lines of --
2012 or 2013
Israel bombs Iran's nuke facilities. China takes Iran's side.
Egypt threatens Israel; Turkiye goes on high military alert,
Hezbollah fires thousands of rockets into Haifa and Tel Aviv.
US military positions itself to protect Israel...
After that, God only knows, but a real possibility
of major war and major disruption of Gulf oil and
a serious shock to the global economy
2013 or 2014
Iran tests A-bomb. Egypt starts a nuclear program followed
by the Saudis and the Turks. This sets in motion a new intifada
against Israel which is worse than any previous ones. Israel
retaliates with maximum force. Egypt closes the Suez Canal.
Attacks on Israeli assets overseas, with a rise in virulent
anti-Semitism in Europe. Things start to go downhill fast.
2014 or 2015
War between India and Pakistan
and / or
North Korea attacks South Korea and this time the South retaliates
by a major assault on NK military targets, and the North explodes
a nuke near Seoul ( the border is just 30 miles away ), and etc
2015 or 2016
Russia in a new war in the Caucasus, this time it spreads to some of
the Central Asian republics and Kazakhstan is drawn in. Effects felt
all over western Asia ( the Mid East plus the Black Sea states ).
The USA must take sides. Whichever way we decide there are
serious blowback consequences.
2016 or 2017
Iranian regime collapses. Muslim jihadists decide to attack Iranian assets
all over the map, and the Persian Gulf becomes a war zone
or
There is an Islamist takeover of northern Nigeria and a civil war
breaks out, with effects all over West Africa as Nigerian oil becomes
impossible to process and ship. The USA and NATO send in troops.
Muslim uprisings elsewhere in sympathy with Muslim Nigerians
disrupt the economies of perceived pro-American regimes in
Jordan, the UAE, and etc
PLUS, as an added bonus, cyberwar breaks out as massive efforts are
carried out to disrupt or wreck the US economy.
The question simply is this :
Which is more realistic future to think about if you were an intelligence
analyst
at the CIA rather than a marketing expert at Apple ?
That --intelligence analysis at the CIA--is the gold standard, nothing
else.
For sure, it makes little sense for me, no longer being 40 something, to
worry all
that much about 2025 or 2035. With luck I will still be around, and
genetics
suggests I will be, but for obvious reasons my focus is directly ahead.
Moreover, as much as I wish the best for Apple ( and MS and Intel, etc,
etc )
I have zero investment in the long term prospects for any corporation.
The upside is that this frees me to think --hopefully-- more objectively.
The operative word is "hopefully." For sure I could be wrong.
And my worries are not predictions, they simply are worries.
But they do seem to me to be realistic.
I agree whole-heartedly with :
>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.
But if we are in another war in the next three or four years how relevant
would
any of this be ?
Yes, regardless, we should pursue these objectives. Any prospect of war is
no
better than one+ chance out of three, give or take. Best guess is that for
any
particular year down the road we will not be at war. And even if we are,
it probably won't last as long as Iraq or Afghanistan. Such objectives
would serve us well, post-war.
But the context for my thinking is the possibility of near term war
that just could become a major conflict, especially if it involves Israel,
or India/ Pakistan, or South Korea and vicinity.
I also am very concerned about the possibility of some kind of Christian
values collapse
in America, even if this is less likely in any near term. But a few years
from now ?
I am very uneasy about that.
Billy
===========================================
4/25/2012 1:59:53 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected]
writes:
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-t
o-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
--
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
