Ernie : I don't think our views are very far apart : "the real challenge is political unity and economic resilience, not raw productivity or physical resources.
The best industrial policy is one that produces healthy economic growth and robust political consensus, and perhaps energy independence." Could not agree more. The issue, though, concerns likelihood vs. plans for all contingencies. When it comes to war, because it is so serious, potentially life-threatening, it isn't a good idea at all to take any chances. Last time I did serious hiking in the mountains I borrowed my brother's heavy-duty hunting knife. I wasn't expecting a large cat ( bobcat, say, or a cougar ) to show up as I trudged along some gravel road, that would not be a commonplace sort of thing at all, but what if the unlikely did happen ? If I had prepared only for the likely that would not be good for me. That's the whole point. Drive a car and you had better have a spare tire. Chances you will need it for any given trip ? About 0. 0001 % But better have one anyway. Because the chance is not zero and because if you are unlucky that day then you could be in serious trouble, in the middle of a desert, or a really bad urban neighborhood, or whatever. Consider your China+North Korea scenario. If that was to happen, and the odds seem to be more like 1 out of 4 or 5 rather than a fractional chance, then we would need to be prepared for some major problems and maybe large scale conflict. So, what I'm saying is that we need as many "spare tires" as necessary in case there is some kind of worst case scenario. Likely ? No, not at all. But there is too much at stake not to take precautions. Therefore a spare tire for consumer electronics, transformers, and everything else that we would need if, say, a Chinese collapse results in large scale war, or turmoil in the Mid East if Israel is hit by Iranian rockets and a war like 1973 breaks out --to use just two examples. Spare tire : Don't leave home without it. Billy :-/ ======================================= 4/30/2012 10:03:12 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Hi Billy, Fascinating bit of personal history. Thanks for sharing. Let me clarify one point: 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 trillion $$ in costs for Iraq have done to the US economy. I think there's two different issues worth teasing out. I don't envision a peaceful future. However, what I *do* envision is what could be called "discretionary" wars. That is, wars we have a great deal of freedom to choose the parameters. All the wars you list from my lifetime (except maybe Cuba) were things that took place far away, and never threatened our core economy. Yes, they were hugely *expensive*, but at most they threatened our economic security (Iraq & Kuwait) or our political influence (Vietnam), not our national integrity. For those kinds of wars -- even the ones you list below -- I don't see where it really matters where we buy our electric transformers. Those things matter when you are fighting a war of attrition and logistics, like World War II, where your total national productivity is a key determining factor in victory. 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 ? Even more relevant. I don't disagree with the plausibility any of your scenarios. I simply disagree that protecting native industry is key to winning any of those conflicts. I believe that there will be war in our future, but it will be *asymmetric* warfare, with terrorists and rogue/failed states. For those kinds of fights, the real challenge is political unity and economic resilience, not raw productivity or physical resources. The best industrial policy is one that produces healthy economic growth and robust political consensus, and perhaps energy independence. If we can achieve that, I believe we will be well positioned to deal with any of the crises you mention. If we don't, we're pretty much hosed regardless. -- Ernie P. 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]_ (mailto:[email protected]) writes: Hi Billy, On Apr 25, 2012, at 1:21 PM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[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/_ (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 -- 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
