Bush's Legacy

[duke o' york]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk

So here we have it from the liberal media

[Imran Siddiqui]

Given the unlikeliness of ever being at war with every significant steel-making nation in the world at the same time (assuming for the moment that, unprotected, we wouldn't have any significant domestic capacity for steel production), no, I don't see how relying on foreign nations for steel is insane, especially since to get to that point, the foreign nations would have to be doing a better job of delivering steel than the domestic steel industry. It strikes me as more insane to wed yourself to an inferior product (be it in price, quality or whatever area makes the foreign supplier better) in order to maintain some self-sufficiency in something you'll likely always be able to trade for.

^

What he said.

Lowering costs by going to the cheapest producer tends to help the consumer. Higher prices for the consumer, even if those industries are now in the good 'ole USA, would hurt the economy, not help it.

Furthermore, how can anyone consider Bush's AIDS policy to be a failure is beyond me. Regardless of abstinence only education programs, the mass quantities of retroviral drugs and the sort don't really depend on sex education.

[RGBVideo]

How so?

In terms of military strategy, 100% self-sufficiency is ideal because you're not dependant upon anyone else; your country is completely independent. This is why leaders preparing for constant warfare with uncertain nations in the future like Stalin (Soviet Union was big, so going for total self-sufficiency wasn't that horrible of a burden) and Hoxha (Albania wasn't that big, so the local economy... pretty sad for albanians) pushed their countries towards 100% economic self-sufficiency.

Economically, this doesn't always (read: practically never) make sense, since some products are gathered/produced more efficiently in nations other than your own.

There's also the pre-enlightenment view of the economy, which dictates that your nation should produce everything by itself (not to buy anything) and then sell surplus to others, because the ultimate goal of the government is to build a large piggy-bank with as many coins as possible a la Scrooge McDuck instead of letting the people decide for themselves how they want to spend (or invest) their wealth in. That road inevitably leads to protectionism, high tariffs and state-sponsored corporations.

[RGBVideo]

world has moved on from the 20th century, you know...

I'm not a trade isolationist, but I think key industries, like steel or car manufacturing need to be protected. You really don't see the insanity in having to rely on foreign nations for the materials to make the steel frames for buildings or construct ships for example?

I think key industries should be protected, too. The thing is, neither automobile or the steel industry is a "key" industry in this sense in the 21st century. Pat Buchanan has been complaining about this for the past 15 years or so, but still doesn't realize that the world has changed since the 50s.

The reason why car and steel corporations were vital "key" industries was that they were (1) rare in global sense, thus a foreign power could "extort" nations without them by enacting trade barriers wrt to said industry products; (2) they were cutting edge technologically, so they were slow to build from scratch to manufacturing ready-and-perfect-quality-products. Neither point is applicable today to either of the industries.

[Riesstiu IV]

Hmm, that makes sense.

[Whoha]

Given the unlikeliness of ever being at war with every significant steel-making nation in the world at the same time (assuming for the moment that, unprotected, we wouldn't have any significant domestic capacity for steel production), no, I don't see how relying on foreign nations for steel is insane, especially since to get to that point, the foreign nations would have to be doing a better job of delivering steel than the domestic steel industry. It strikes me as more insane to wed yourself to an inferior product (be it in price, quality or whatever area makes the foreign supplier better) in order to maintain some self-sufficiency in something you'll likely always be able to trade for.

Manufacturers also happen to be the largest R&D spenders.

[Solomwi]

In terms of military strategy, 100% self-sufficiency is ideal because you're not dependant upon anyone else; your country is completely independent. This is why leaders preparing for constant warfare with uncertain nations in the future like Stalin (Soviet Union was big, so going for total self-sufficiency wasn't that horrible of a burden) and Hoxha (Albania wasn't that big, so the local economy... pretty sad for albanians) pushed their countries towards 100% economic self-sufficiency.

Economically, this doesn't always (read: practically never) make sense, since some products are gathered/produced more efficiently in nations other than your own.

There's also the pre-enlightenment view of the economy, which dictates that your nation should produce everything by itself (not to buy anything) and then sell surplus to others, because the ultimate goal of the government is to build a large piggy-bank with as many coins as possible a la Scrooge McDuck instead of letting the people decide for themselves how they want to spend (or invest) their wealth in. That road inevitably leads to protectionism, high tariffs and state-sponsored corporations.

I'd argue that the economic aspect means it's not ideal in strictly military terms, either, but it looks like you wouldn't exactly disagree. The pre-enlightenment view is one of the reasons I don't understand the desire for self-sufficiency. To be more clear, I'm aware of the reasons some give for the desire, but don't think any of them justify the cost.

[Guynemer]

Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States of America!

[OneFootInTheGrave]

America has fostered a negligent consumerist culture that has essentially said its okay to go into debt in order to satisfy impatient desires. I would rather have the dollar be spent inside our own nation, and I would gladly pay more for American made consumer goods for the sake of a more self-sufficient nation.

the bolded part is true, and assuming that you spent your borrowed dollars inside the US instead of buying the best goods your money can get (or best advertized ones) around the world, you as a consumer would be getting even more screwed. Reason being is that you would buy inferior domestic products and fill the coffer of the domestic incompetent and expensive producer of goods, so with the mountain of debt you would anyhow create you would get substantially less...

so overall if anything you got better value for your debt by buying Chineze stuff... but in the end the socio-economical policy encouraging this debt binge is to blame for the current situation... it just happens that the Chinese were offering the most for you debt at the time admin/FED encouraged it most.

edit: and inadvertently instead of filling the coffers of local US lord, you were actively (and dramatically) changing markets and lifestyles of people from whom you were purchasing the best quality goods, thus and improving their overall living conditions... so if anything this debt mountain has comparatively done a lot of good, comparing to it being generated and spent in "isolation". It would be better without it (debt mountain) for everyone involved, but China has precisely nothing to do with that, and Bush "openness" is/was one of his rare excellent moves.