World Politics

[Bustedknuckle]

Re: Re:

then again, look at this morning's news - an american military vessel has demonstratively been routed to south china sea. and this is under the guise of a non-interventionist president ! what if china decides to respond the provocation by some indirect or direct means ? what if some other nervous client of the us misinterprets those 'visit' as an approval for their own anti-china actions ?

there is something very disagreeable about such american moves and i worry it is becoming a cultural consequence of their world view, probably w/o realizing it.

I think it is in response to China's 'gun boat diplomacy' in the region. Finding a sandbar or reef in another country's region of influence, pilling a bunch of dirt there, erecting a few buildings, maybe a short airstrip, claiming it's Chinese territory then get sweated up when any non chinese ship navigates at 12 miles from it. Not an isolated act, happens all the time in various places at sea, but the US, Russia and China, who is striving to create a true blue water navy.

So, it's OK for China but not the US?

 

[Echoes]

Re:

Echoes, you're cherry-picking names. Hitchens was not a left-wing intellectual, he was all over the map ideologically, just ask the poster who uses him as his avatar. Buchanan has long been anti-interventionist.

Hitchens considered himself a Trotskyite. In 2009, he argued that Trotsky represented for him to "struggle of the Left against Stalin" (sic). So a Trotskyite who turned neocon just like Kristol or Podhoretz. It's no longer an isolated case. The poster who uses him as his avatar said repeatedly on this very thread that the Iraq War was morally justified.
I'm from the Francophone world and I can safely say that in France the majority of the 10% of Iraq War supporters came from the Left, many of whom originally Trotskyites or Maoists: Romain Goupil, André Glucksmann, Bernard Kouchner, Bernard-Henri Levy, etc. It cannot be a coincidence. Chirac opposed the war because he was a former soldier and still a tiny bit of his Gaullist background in him.

Again Buchanan has long been anti-interventionist just like Ron Paul, Paul Gottfried or Gary Johnson. Were there any paleoconservative who supported the war in the US? Most paleocons worldwide are anti-imperialists !!

As for finding neo-con roots in the left, you can connect anything with anything if you go back far enough in time. Lincoln freed the slaves, so by your logic you could argue that the civil rights movement of the 60s was a product of Republicans, not Democrats . Nixon was practically a socialist by the standards of the current right wing of the Republican party, so you could argue that he gave birth to Bernie Sanders..

Yes, I do believe it's interesting to track the roots for a political movement. Also Nixon's case showed that the Right has traditionally been more social than the Left. France under General De Gaulle was way more social than today's far-left parties agendas and yet he was a right-wing traditionalist. Nixon was a turning point though, he did some good things and ugly things in Indochina but you also had the unilateral cancellation of the direct convertibility of the US dollar to gold (Nixon Shock). That is pretty liberal, not social and we still suffered from its consequences.

I wouldn't completely dismiss your point about Syria and Libya, but you're missing a lot of differences between our intervention in those countries and in Iraq, let alone in Vietnam. You're also exaggerating the amount of opposition to Iraq, which wasn't that great until the chickens came home to roost several years after the war was over; and you seem to be underestimating the opposition to our actions in Syria. Scott is not some lone wolf in pointing out what a mess we've made there.

So the difference between the 21st century wars in the Middle East and the Vietnam War is that the Vietnam War was a war of conscripts, as was said above. That's correct. It shows how coward the Left can be, "we support wars only if we let others do it, if we don't do it ourselves", lol.

But what are the difference between Iraq and Lybia? Both were based on lies (WMD and Gaddafi bombing his people), both were motivated by "oil-for gold plans" (Hussein and Gaddafi should have been more discreet about it). The only differences were that the Iraq War was led by a seemingly right-wing administration while the Lybia War was orchestrated by a left-wing US administration and the US intervened directly in Iraq but let allies do the dirty job in Lybia (Cameron, Sarkozy).

When I'm talking about the opposition to the Iraq War, I'm talking worldwide (not just in the US), especially in Europe, and in my country. I was at uni then and several of my mates went demonstrating, Bettini had a white ribband on his saddle tube during the 2003 Milan-Sanremo. I've never seen that during the Lybia War, let alone Syria. The rallies about the Syria War have only been anti-Assad. Why are we tolerating military intervention overseas more and more easily?

Do any of you watch 'Homeland'? The latest episode (no spoilers) featured some amusing interchanges between various characters about the current state of affairs in Syria, and offered a possible scenario for what might be going on behind the scenes right now.

Homeland, the American adaptation of the Israeli series Hatufim by Gideon Raff about Israeli war prisoners. Great reference! I was told that they talked about Charlie Hebdo in their Season 5. God knows what bullsh*t they would convey.

Perle Wurmser Feith

Yes, Feith is definitely one of those liberals who turned neocons. He campaigned for Senator Henry Jackson (D) in 1975 and then for Elmo Zumwalt (also D). According to Jonathan Clarke, Jackson had "got a group around him which said, "We don't want to have détente with the Soviet Union, we don't want to have peaceful co-existence with the Soviet Union, and by the way, when we're talking about Vietnam, stop talking as though America was a criminal country. In fact, America may have gone off the rails but it's not something which we should question the existence or the validity of the American ideal." So, that started the movement from left to right."

 

[python]

something is afoot in syria...i don't know if the political ice has started to break, but the feverish diplomatic activity that followed the russian military action is syria is obvious...

i am following the publicly available discrete significant events that originated with the extraordinary emergency visit by nataniyahu to moscow. then, followed several visits to moscow by the foreign ministers of gulf arab states and the low-key telecons btwn vlad and the heads of those states, including - significantly - the saudis.

this morning's news is also very significant. iran has just accepted the invitation to participate in the vienna ad hock meeting on syria. curiously, this is despite the us john kerry's last friday public objections ('not yet') following the 1st such meeting btwn the us, russia, saud and turkey.

what makes the iran invitation most interesting is that while the us was apparently lukewarm, their implacable enemy, the saidis, have apparently changed their mind.

how did it become possible ? what follows is my own opinion which is based on some speculative reports by debkafile. to begin with, the saudi king met yesterday with Egypt's prez sisi. the 2 men are on opposing ends re. russia in syria despite egypt being essentially bankrolled by the saudis after the muslim bras were overturned. while the egyptians have publicly supported russian intervention, the saudis have hated it. clearly, sisi had whispered something 'sweet' to the king's ear. we can only guess what. then, according to debkafile, before the old man king had a chance to stretch, he got a call from moscow. vlad had something important to say...

and now we will have this weird collection of actors that lose no chance of swearing at each other - we will have them talk syrian busyness. as they should have had long ago..

in this mess 2 thing are clear to me. it would not be possible w/o the russian military intervention and - more significantly - w/o the american tacit support for a comprehensive diplomatic process.

if my analysis is correct, the hallmarks of the us change of heart could be traced to obama style as evidenced by his resove in concluding the us-iran nuclear deal.

what ever the deep underlying reasons, the long-suffering syrians deserve a diplomacy chance.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

But why are there similar arguments for many other motives and reasoning(s)? Because they are all legit. So what would this tell you?

That they are all legit?
That none are legit?
That too many people have influence in DC?
That the reasoning is so incoherent?
That the beuracracy of nations of a certain size and maturity with all the civic faculties, becomes unwieldy, and impossible to govern coherently? (I think Eric Schlosser alludes to this in his latest book on nuclear weapons, and the trend to complexity, creates its own problems

re: legit and legitimacy, I was thinking some more about this.

so General Wesley Clarke can give the heads up on the grand strategy to take down iraq then syria then lebanon the tehran, with libya interpolated somewhere betwix
Alan Greespan can say Oil!

the establishment and the right, and players in GOP will let their tongue slip for their reasoning and justification...

most will just be the groupthink which i meant to mention, and was my motif (re: sample fallcy and barrier to entry at West Point...

but, maybe for alot it is groupthink.

but what are they not saying?

I never made a delineation between correct and legitimacy. I think i had substituted legit for correct.

all the reasons were correct. but were they legitimate? They may have been legitimate (I am not talking international law), I am saying, Wesley Clark is correct, so is Alan Greenspan and the rest. They are all correct, but are each of those individual reasoning(s) the legitimate and significant influence on the decision.

because they are all correct, are therefore none legitimate? what makes one reason legitimate. as I am positing, does it need to be the overwhelming motive for the "kinetic action", not merely a post-facto justification in this gestalt of reasoning and influences.

I think what the beltway and the establishment never mentioned was the long game.

I think this was less about ME and more a proxy. It was China. And Russia wanted the pipeline to Tehran and the Gulf to transport their gas, but it was not even about Russia nor their only port at Tartus in the Mediterranean (Syria).

America only have had an African command hq in the last decade. AFRICOM in actually based in southern italy.

This is all about a first strike gambit on the Sinos and trying to ringfence their conquest and ambitions on African resources, and ME resources imo. Gaddafi and his advisers were shortsighted in allowing the Sinos to drill and manage their wells.


*re:Sino conquest, this is analogy, not military conquest, just their current MO of going in with money, manpower, technical competency, and technology for industrialism and mercantalism

 

[VeloCity]

Re: Re:

Echoes, you're cherry-picking names. Hitchens was not a left-wing intellectual, he was all over the map ideologically, just ask the poster who uses him as his avatar. Buchanan has long been anti-interventionist.

Hitchens considered himself a Trotskyite. In 2009, he argued that Trotsky represented for him to "struggle of the Left against Stalin" (sic). So a Trotskyite who turned neocon just like Kristol or Podhoretz. It's no longer an isolated case. The poster who uses him as his avatar said repeatedly on this very thread that the Iraq War was morally justified.
I'm from the Francophone world and I can safely say that in France the majority of the 10% of Iraq War supporters came from the Left, many of whom originally Trotskyites or Maoists: Romain Goupil, André Glucksmann, Bernard Kouchner, Bernard-Henri Levy, etc. It cannot be a coincidence. Chirac opposed the war because he was a former soldier and still a tiny bit of his Gaullist background in him.

Again Buchanan has long been anti-interventionist just like Ron Paul, Paul Gottfried or Gary Johnson. Were there any paleoconservative who supported the war in the US? Most paleocons worldwide are anti-imperialists !!

As for finding neo-con roots in the left, you can connect anything with anything if you go back far enough in time. Lincoln freed the slaves, so by your logic you could argue that the civil rights movement of the 60s was a product of Republicans, not Democrats . Nixon was practically a socialist by the standards of the current right wing of the Republican party, so you could argue that he gave birth to Bernie Sanders..

Yes, I do believe it's interesting to track the roots for a political movement. Also Nixon's case showed that the Right has traditionally been more social than the Left. France under General De Gaulle was way more social than today's far-left parties agendas and yet he was a right-wing traditionalist. Nixon was a turning point though, he did some good things and ugly things in Indochina but you also had the unilateral cancellation of the direct convertibility of the US dollar to gold (Nixon Shock). That is pretty liberal, not social and we still suffered from its consequences.

I wouldn't completely dismiss your point about Syria and Libya, but you're missing a lot of differences between our intervention in those countries and in Iraq, let alone in Vietnam. You're also exaggerating the amount of opposition to Iraq, which wasn't that great until the chickens came home to roost several years after the war was over; and you seem to be underestimating the opposition to our actions in Syria. Scott is not some lone wolf in pointing out what a mess we've made there.

So the difference between the 21st century wars in the Middle East and the Vietnam War is that the Vietnam War was a war of conscripts, as was said above. That's correct. It shows how coward the Left can be, "we support wars only if we let others do it, if we don't do it ourselves", lol.

But what are the difference between Iraq and Lybia? Both were based on lies (WMD and Gaddafi bombing his people), both were motivated by "oil-for gold plans" (Hussein and Gaddafi should have been more discreet about it). The only differences were that the Iraq War was led by a seemingly right-wing administration while the Lybia War was orchestrated by a left-wing US administration and the US intervened directly in Iraq but let allies do the dirty job in Lybia (Cameron, Sarkozy).

When I'm talking about the opposition to the Iraq War, I'm talking worldwide (not just in the US), especially in Europe, and in my country. I was at uni then and several of my mates went demonstrating, Bettini had a white ribband on his saddle tube during the 2003 Milan-Sanremo. I've never seen that during the Lybia War, let alone Syria. The rallies about the Syria War have only been anti-Assad. Why are we tolerating military intervention overseas more and more easily?

Do any of you watch 'Homeland'? The latest episode (no spoilers) featured some amusing interchanges between various characters about the current state of affairs in Syria, and offered a possible scenario for what might be going on behind the scenes right now.

Homeland, the American adaptation of the Israeli series Hatufim by Gideon Raff about Israeli war prisoners. Great reference! I was told that they talked about Charlie Hebdo in their Season 5. God knows what bullsh*t they would convey.

Perle Wurmser Feith

Yes, Feith is definitely one of those liberals who turned neocons. He campaigned for Senator Henry Jackson (D) in 1975 and then for Elmo Zumwalt (also D). According to Jonathan Clarke, Jackson had "got a group around him which said, "We don't want to have détente with the Soviet Union, we don't want to have peaceful co-existence with the Soviet Union, and by the way, when we're talking about Vietnam, stop talking as though America was a criminal country. In fact, America may have gone off the rails but it's not something which we should question the existence or the validity of the American ideal." So, that started the movement from left to right."

um, if they rejected an ideological perspective in favor of the exact opposite ideological perspective then how exactly can they be rooted in the former?

As for paleocons being anti-interventionist and isolationist, what nonsense. Have you forgotten the Cold War already? Korea? Vietnam? That wasn't the neocons. And I'll just point out that almost all of today's neocons avoided Vietnam and all military service, which is why they're called chickenhawks.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

As for paleocons being anti-interventionist and isolationist, what nonsense. Have you forgotten the Cold War already? Korea? Vietnam? That wasn't the neocons. And I'll just point out that almost all of today's neocons avoided Vietnam and all military service, which is why they're called chickenhawks.

right, military adventurism has always been a crucial element in the american experiment.

i wonder how this actually related to the fact that it is an island, a big island, has no immediate threats, and has crushed everyone in its wake.

the full spectrum dominance wont be forever, this might well play out over centuries hence, but when india and china can neutralise the capital and commercial and entrepreneurial culture advantages america holds, india and china will bring their size to bear. It might take centuries to neutralise these advantages but america wont be a superpower forever, i will be be long dead tho

Ian Morris at Oxford now Stanford

Why the West Rules--for Now: The Patterns of History, and What They Reveal About the Future

 

[frenchfry]

The new left wing NDP government in Alberta has decided that the best way to fix a deficit/debt problem is to spend even more! I might be a bit dense, but I have never figured why some might find some logic in that.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-to-loosen-purse-strings-to-stimulate-economy-1.3291398

In his budget speech, Ceci said his government is reversing the Progressive Conservative's mismanagement over the past 30 years and spending $49.9 billion to do it.

The NDP is spending $34 billion on capital projects over the next five years to spur the economy, a 15 per cent increase or additional $4.5 billion from what the Tories promised in their last budget in March.

The NDP should send some representatives over to Europe to check out the sparkling new but never to be used airports (France, Spain, Germany and certainly elsewhere) that were built by governments attempting to get out of deficits by spending on capital projects that made absolutely no sense at all.

A few decades ago the Alberta PC government built a hospital in every hick town. Then they discovered that there wasn't enough medical personnel to staff them, and that the annual operating cost was about 1/2 the initial construction cost, so many of the newly built hospitals were shut down. About as financially efficient as digging a hole and filling it back in.

Add to that Trudeau's desire to go on a spending binge, if the price of oil doesn't double soon the debt will explode and it will take decades to put things right again.

 

[May0maniac]

Re:

something is afoot in syria...i don't know if the political ice has started to break, but the feverish diplomatic activity that followed the russian military action is syria is obvious...

i am following the publicly available discrete significant events that originated with the extraordinary emergency visit by nataniyahu to moscow. then, followed several visits to moscow by the foreign ministers of gulf arab states and the low-key telecons btwn vlad and the heads of those states, including - significantly - the saudis.

this morning's news is also very significant. iran has just accepted the invitation to participate in the vienna ad hock meeting on syria. curiously, this is despite the us john kerry's last friday public objections ('not yet') following the 1st such meeting btwn the us, russia, saud and turkey.

what makes the iran invitation most interesting is that while the us was apparently lukewarm, their implacable enemy, the saidis, have apparently changed their mind.

how did it become possible ? what follows is my own opinion which is based on some speculative reports by debkafile. to begin with, the saudi king met yesterday with Egypt's prez sisi. the 2 men are on opposing ends re. russia in syria despite egypt being essentially bankrolled by the saudis after the muslim bras were overturned. while the egyptians have publicly supported russian intervention, the saudis have hated it. clearly, sisi had whispered something 'sweet' to the king's ear. we can only guess what. then, according to debkafile, before the old man king had a chance to stretch, he got a call from moscow. vlad had something important to say...

and now we will have this weird collection of actors that lose no chance of swearing at each other - we will have them talk syrian busyness. as they should have had long ago..

in this mess 2 thing are clear to me. it would not be possible w/o the russian military intervention and - more significantly - w/o the american tacit support for a comprehensive diplomatic process.

if my analysis is correct, the hallmarks of the us change of heart could be traced to obama style as evidenced by his resove in concluding the us-iran nuclear deal.

what ever the deep underlying reasons, the long-suffering syrians deserve a diplomacy chance.

The Russian Intervention isn't a desaster for the Saudis and Egypt, before their intervention the Iranians had gained more and more influence in Syria and the Assad regime really became dependet of iranian aid, they send weapons, military advisors and troops.
The Russian intervention seems to have reduced their Influence in Syria and the various arabian nations seem to like that, everything that reduces the Iranian influence in the region is it is in their best interest.
It would also explain the cooperation with Israel,Russia reducing the Iranian influence in Syria is good news for Israel.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/thanks-russia-iran-could-lose-control-the-syrian-war-14061
http://osnetdaily.com/2015/10/russia-throws-iran-under-the-bus/

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

The new left wing NDP government in Alberta has decided that the best way to fix a deficit/debt problem is to spend even more! I might be a bit dense, but I have never figured why some might find some logic in that.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-to-loosen-purse-strings-to-stimulate-economy-1.3291398

In his budget speech, Ceci said his government is reversing the Progressive Conservative's mismanagement over the past 30 years and spending $49.9 billion to do it.

The NDP is spending $34 billion on capital projects over the next five years to spur the economy, a 15 per cent increase or additional $4.5 billion from what the Tories promised in their last budget in March.

The NDP should send some representatives over to Europe to check out the sparkling new but never to be used airports (France, Spain, Germany and certainly elsewhere) that were built by governments attempting to get out of deficits by spending on capital projects that made absolutely no sense at all.

A few decades ago the Alberta PC government built a hospital in every hick town. Then they discovered that there wasn't enough medical personnel to staff them, and that the annual operating cost was about 1/2 the initial construction cost, so many of the newly built hospitals were shut down. About as financially efficient as digging a hole and filling it back in.

Add to that Trudeau's desire to go on a spending binge, if the price of oil doesn't double soon the debt will explode and it will take decades to put things right again.

Well yeah, if you invest in non-tradable goods/services (like a hospital) it will be a sinkhole for your cash. However, there are infrastructure projects that will stimulate growth. For example, expanding the airport in Prince George (British Columbia) has allowed for heavy commercial aircraft to land and refuel. For many routes across the Pacific into North America this is an ideal location. And that is a never-ending windfall to the local community. There are plenty of infrastructure opportunities that can lead to a rise in tradable goods/services - hence more than worth it. Renewable energy sources is a good example because it can also lead to research and development opportunities, which then spin off into new high tech companies.

John Swanson

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

As for paleocons being anti-interventionist and isolationist, what nonsense. Have you forgotten the Cold War already? Korea? Vietnam? That wasn't the neocons. And I'll just point out that almost all of today's neocons avoided Vietnam and all military service, which is why they're called chickenhawks.

right, military adventurism has always been a crucial element in the american experiment.

i wonder how this actually related to the fact that it is an island, a big island, has no immediate threats, and has crushed everyone in its wake.

the full spectrum dominance wont be forever, this might well play out over centuries hence, but when india and china can neutralise the capital and commercial and entrepreneurial culture advantages america holds, india and china will bring their size to bear. It might take centuries to neutralise these advantages but america wont be a superpower forever, i will be be long dead tho

Ian Morris at Oxford now Stanford

Why the West Rules--for Now: The Patterns of History, and What They Reveal About the Future

Or as we know from every empire from the past: the good times won't last forever.

 

[frenchfry]

Re: Re:

The new left wing NDP government in Alberta has decided that the best way to fix a deficit/debt problem is to spend even more! I might be a bit dense, but I have never figured why some might find some logic in that.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-to-loosen-purse-strings-to-stimulate-economy-1.3291398

In his budget speech, Ceci said his government is reversing the Progressive Conservative's mismanagement over the past 30 years and spending $49.9 billion to do it.

The NDP is spending $34 billion on capital projects over the next five years to spur the economy, a 15 per cent increase or additional $4.5 billion from what the Tories promised in their last budget in March.

The NDP should send some representatives over to Europe to check out the sparkling new but never to be used airports (France, Spain, Germany and certainly elsewhere) that were built by governments attempting to get out of deficits by spending on capital projects that made absolutely no sense at all.

A few decades ago the Alberta PC government built a hospital in every hick town. Then they discovered that there wasn't enough medical personnel to staff them, and that the annual operating cost was about 1/2 the initial construction cost, so many of the newly built hospitals were shut down. About as financially efficient as digging a hole and filling it back in.

Add to that Trudeau's desire to go on a spending binge, if the price of oil doesn't double soon the debt will explode and it will take decades to put things right again.

Well yeah, if you invest in non-tradable goods/services (like a hospital) it will be a sinkhole for your cash. However, there are infrastructure projects that will stimulate growth. For example, expanding the airport in Prince George (British Columbia) has allowed for heavy commercial aircraft to land and refuel. For many routes across the Pacific into North America this is an ideal location. And that is a never-ending windfall to the local community. There are plenty of infrastructure opportunities that can lead to a rise in tradable goods/services - hence more than worth it. Renewable energy sources is a good example because it can also lead to research and development opportunities, which then spin off into new high tech companies.

John Swanson

There is a big difference between well planned and financed infrastructure projects, and a politicaly motivated objective to spend large amounts of borrowed money with the principal objective of "spurring" the economy. Maybe the investments will be good ones, but there are so many examples out there of the opposite.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

There is a big difference between well planned and financed infrastructure projects, and a politicaly motivated objective to spend large amounts of borrowed money with the principal objective of "spurring" the economy. Maybe the investments will be good ones, but there are so many examples out there of the opposite.

The infrastructure in the US needs fixing. Should not be hard to match well planned fixes and reap the stimulus benefits. Infrastructure as a government spend used to be a no-brainer. Then the no-brainers started acting like it was a problem.

 

[blutto]

Re:

The new left wing NDP government in Alberta has decided that the best way to fix a deficit/debt problem is to spend even more! I might be a bit dense, but I have never figured why some might find some logic in that.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-to-loosen-purse-strings-to-stimulate-economy-1.3291398

In his budget speech, Ceci said his government is reversing the Progressive Conservative's mismanagement over the past 30 years and spending $49.9 billion to do it.

The NDP is spending $34 billion on capital projects over the next five years to spur the economy, a 15 per cent increase or additional $4.5 billion from what the Tories promised in their last budget in March.

The NDP should send some representatives over to Europe to check out the sparkling new but never to be used airports (France, Spain, Germany and certainly elsewhere) that were built by governments attempting to get out of deficits by spending on capital projects that made absolutely no sense at all.

A few decades ago the Alberta PC government built a hospital in every hick town. Then they discovered that there wasn't enough medical personnel to staff them, and that the annual operating cost was about 1/2 the initial construction cost, so many of the newly built hospitals were shut down. About as financially efficient as digging a hole and filling it back in.

Add to that Trudeau's desire to go on a spending binge, if the price of oil doesn't double soon the debt will explode and it will take decades to put things right again.

....for those that haven't read the article included in the post above and came away with the impression that this is just another example of how, uhhh, leftish government typically are profligate spenders of tax payer's monies ( with the implied idea that conservative governments are wise and sensible spenders ) one should know a couple of things...

....first the mess the province is in now is a direct result of the idiotic way the Conservatives did business with the oil industry ( if they had actually been shrewd business types as were the socialist Norwegians their oil cash cow would have put almost a trillon dollars "in the bank" ....as it was they literally gave the resource away and have very relatively little to show for it..) ...and it is also a result of some really stupid spending strategies ( such as the ones mentioned ) which as much as anything were to literally buy votes, so were politically motivated with little or no forethought involved ( read rancid pork )...

....second, the strategy the NDP is implementing was designed in large part by David Dodge who as a former Bank of Canada governor was a very effective and prudent overseer of the Canadian financial system ( who created an economic environment so robust that it nicely withstood several years of Conservative mismanagement under Harper...) ...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

" The budget relied on advice of former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge, who was hired to make recommendations on infrastructure spending. The NDP is spending $34 billion on capital projects over the next five years to spur the economy, a 15 per cent increase or additional $4.5 billion from what the Tories promised in their last budget in March.

By speeding up construction on roads, schools and hospitals, up to 10,000 jobs will be created, Ceci said.

Dodge said it's not unusual for governments to borrow in bad times when interest rates are low.

"In fact it turns out to be very usual at a point in time when the economy changes dramatically and revenues fall off," he told reporters."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...so it seems the real story here is that a non-Conservative government once again has to do the heavy lifting in cleaning up a financial mess left by a Conservative government ( just as Chretien had to do after the financial disaster of the Mulroney years and whose hard work was subsequently pissed away by Harper with silly tax cuts to curry favour with the voters ... )...

Cheers

 

[blutto]

Re:

The new left wing NDP government in Alberta has decided that the best way to fix a deficit/debt problem is to spend even more! I might be a bit dense, but I have never figured why some might find some logic in that.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-to-loosen-purse-strings-to-stimulate-economy-1.3291398

In his budget speech, Ceci said his government is reversing the Progressive Conservative's mismanagement over the past 30 years and spending $49.9 billion to do it.

The NDP is spending $34 billion on capital projects over the next five years to spur the economy, a 15 per cent increase or additional $4.5 billion from what the Tories promised in their last budget in March.

The NDP should send some representatives over to Europe to check out the sparkling new but never to be used airports (France, Spain, Germany and certainly elsewhere) that were built by governments attempting to get out of deficits by spending on capital projects that made absolutely no sense at all.

A few decades ago the Alberta PC government built a hospital in every hick town. Then they discovered that there wasn't enough medical personnel to staff them, and that the annual operating cost was about 1/2 the initial construction cost, so many of the newly built hospitals were shut down. About as financially efficient as digging a hole and filling it back in.

Add to that Trudeau's desire to go on a spending binge, if the price of oil doesn't double soon the debt will explode and it will take decades to put things right again.

....well, there is another way to look at the low oil prices....first the low oil prices will bring the dollar down in value and should reinvigorate the industrial sectors which have been hammered by a high dollar which was directly tied to high oil prices and was much higher than the Cdn dollar usually stands ( Harper was too stupid/tied to oil interests to follow the Norwegian example and institute a system whereby the dollar was not directly affected by oil ....but then I really don't think he cared one whit for the industrial sectors....those weren't "his people" and he seemed to really favour playing to his base at the expense of everybody else )...

....a reinvigorated industrial sector will actually be an economic/employment positive for far more Canadians than the oil industry ( which is surprisingly small relatively speaking ....about 6.7% of the industrial workforce...slightly smaller than the regular mining industry... ) and be much much better for Canada as a whole...

....frankly a lot of people are very very happy that the oil price has dropped....about the only problem, apart from the oil sector, is that the alternative energy industry, which was expanding dramatically when energy costs were high have taken a big hit....

Cheers

 

[frenchfry]

....for those that haven't read the article included in the post above and came away with the impression that this is just another example of how, uhhh, leftish government typically are profligate spenders of tax payer's monies ( with the implied idea that conservative governments are wise and sensible spenders ) one should know a couple of things...

At what point did I suggest that left is bad / right is good? In fact I suggested they both can be incompetent at managing the taxpayer's money if the spending is politically driven. I suggested that they study real-life examples of how infrastructure spending as an economic boost has gone terribly wrong so they don't make the same mistakes. There are likely infrastructure projects that have worked as well, there again current governments can use these examples to plan wisely.

What often doesn't work is the ideologically driven "let’s spend massively to incite economic growth" that results in hard to reimburse debt. I live in a country that has practised massive deficit spending for decades and I can assure you that it hasn't spurred anything except a dependence on government transfer payments.

 

[frenchfry]

Re: Re:

There is a big difference between well planned and financed infrastructure projects, and a politicaly motivated objective to spend large amounts of borrowed money with the principal objective of "spurring" the economy. Maybe the investments will be good ones, but there are so many examples out there of the opposite.

The infrastructure in the US needs fixing. Should not be hard to match well planned fixes and reap the stimulus benefits. Infrastructure as a government spend used to be a no-brainer. Then the no-brainers started acting like it was a problem.

This always amazes me that a rich country that has been deficit spending for years in the "good times" finds itself with a degraded infrastructure. My son's high school is in deplorable condition, yet our government spends 20% more than it has in revenue and we have one of the highest tax rates in the world. Where does all that money disappear to?

 

[Brullnux]

Spending more to lower deficits and kick start your economy does work, especially in smaller states. See Iceland post 2010. Really, really badly hurt after the crash, huge deficit at the time, so spent more; closed soon some banks and the economy restarted and deficit went down. Still has a deficit, but much lower than UM, for example, which started off in 2010 with a similar deficit.

 

[Echoes]

Re: Re:

um, if they rejected an ideological perspective in favor of the exact opposite ideological perspective then how exactly can they be rooted in the former?

Perhaps because they haven't totally rejected their first ideological perspective. Interventions overseas to bring "democracy" and "human rights" over there seems pretty left-wing to me.

The Iraq War was portrayed as a "humanitarian intervention". That's how Sam Harris described it, a war that was meant to improve the lives of the Iraqis (sic). The "Right to Humanitarian Intervention" came from the left-wing agenda. Real right-wingers remain more isolationists, even if on the other side of the planet, peoples are under tyrannical rules.

As for paleocons being anti-interventionist and isolationist, what nonsense. Have you forgotten the Cold War already? Korea? Vietnam? That wasn't the neocons. And I'll just point out that almost all of today's neocons avoided Vietnam and all military service, which is why they're called chickenhawks.

I certainly haven't forgotten all those wars that Democrats started: Korea (Truman), Vietnam (Kennedy). The Republicans only inherited those situations. The Containment Doctrine was set up under Truman (the Hiroshima criminal). The American Left created a lot more wars than the Republicans did. I'm not saying that Republicans are great. The problem with the Republicans and with the right in general is that it has made too many concessions to be faithful to its calling, while the moment a real right wing policy is attempted then the votes at the booths are absent.

Spending more to lower deficits and kick start your economy does work, especially in smaller states. See Iceland post 2010. Really, really badly hurt after the crash, huge deficit at the time, so spent more; closed soon some banks and the economy restarted and deficit went down. Still has a deficit, but much lower than UM, for example, which STARTED off in 2010 with a similar deficit.

If I remember well, the Icelanders voted against paying their external debt at that time, so they still cut some form of spendings, enabling them to spend more in the real economy. That is something we all should do (if I were provocative I'd remind you all that Mussolini suppressed Italy's debt by 1922 ). The creditors of our states do not represent the real economy, the very concept of debt is a fraud. It's robbery in disguise. If we stop paying our external debt, it would obviously leave room for real social spendings (or tax cut or both at the same time).

 

[blutto]

Re:

....for those that haven't read the article included in the post above and came away with the impression that this is just another example of how, uhhh, leftish government typically are profligate spenders of tax payer's monies ( with the implied idea that conservative governments are wise and sensible spenders ) one should know a couple of things...

At what point did I suggest that left is bad / right is good? In fact I suggested they both can be incompetent at managing the taxpayer's money if the spending is politically driven. I suggested that they study real-life examples of how infrastructure spending as an economic boost has gone terribly wrong so they don't make the same mistakes. There are likely infrastructure projects that have worked as well, there again current governments can use these examples to plan wisely.

What often doesn't work is the ideologically driven "let’s spend massively to incite economic growth" that results in hard to reimburse debt. I live in a country that has practised massive deficit spending for decades and I can assure you that it hasn't spurred anything except a dependence on government transfer payments.

....that is why I included the word implied....if that isn't the case I apologize but in my experience the one mostly/usually/almost always follows the other...it has unfortunately become the air we breath in discussions of politics...

Cheers

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

There is a big difference between well planned and financed infrastructure projects, and a politicaly motivated objective to spend large amounts of borrowed money with the principal objective of "spurring" the economy. Maybe the investments will be good ones, but there are so many examples out there of the opposite.

The infrastructure in the US needs fixing. Should not be hard to match well planned fixes and reap the stimulus benefits. Infrastructure as a government spend used to be a no-brainer. Then the no-brainers started acting like it was a problem.

This always amazes me that a rich country that has been deficit spending for years in the "good times" finds itself with a degraded infrastructure. My son's high school is in deplorable condition, yet our government spends 20% more than it has in revenue and we have one of the highest tax rates in the world. Where does all that money disappear to?

...shiny new baubles, errr, weapons...?....and then there is the magic of compound interest which is an integral part of financialized industrialization.....

"Financially, Marx pointed to the tendency of debts to grow exponentially, independently of the economy’s ability to pay, and indeed faster than the economy itself. The rise in debt and accrual of interest was autonomous from the industrial capital and wage labor dynamics on which Volume I of Capital focused. Debts are self-expanding by purely mathematical rules – the “magic of compound interest.” "

....and....

"We can see in America and Europe how interest charges, stock buybacks, debt leveraging and other financial maneuverings eat into profits, deterring investment in plant and equipment by diverting revenue to economically empty financial operations. Marx called finance capital “imaginary” or “fictitious” to the extent that it does not stem from within the industrial economy, and because – in the end – its demands for payment cannot be met. Calling this financial accrual a “void form of capital.”[1] It was fictitious because it consisted of bonds, mortgages, bank loans and other rentier claims on the means of production and the flow of wages, profit and tangible capital investment.

The second factor leading to economic crisis was more long-term: Ricardian land rent. Landlords and monopolists levied an “ownership tax” on the economy by extracting rent as a result of privileges that (like interest) were independent of the mode of production. Land rent would rise as economies became larger and more prosperous. More and more of the economic surplus (profits and surplus value) would be diverted to owners of land, natural resources and monopolies. These forms of economic rent were the result of privileges that had no intrinsic value or cost of production. Ultimately, they would push up wage levels and leave no room for profit. Marx described this as Ricardo’s Armageddon.

These two contributing forces to crisis, Marx pointed out, were legacies of Europe’s feudal origins: landlords conquering the land and appropriating natural resources and infrastructure; and banks, which remained largely usurious and predatory, making war loans to governments and exploiting consumers in petty usury. Rent and interest were in large part the products of wars. As such, they were external to the means of production and its direct cost (that is, the value of products).

Most of all, of course, Marx pointed to the form of exploitation of wage labor by its employers. That did indeed stem from the capitalist production process. Bertell Ollman has just explained that dynamic so well that I need not repeat it here.

Today’s economic crisis in the West: financial and rent extraction, leading to debt deflation Bertell Ollman has described how Marx analyzed economic crisis stemming from the inability of wage labor to buy what it produces. That is the inner contradiction specific to industrial capitalism. As described in Volume I of Capital, employers seek to maximize profits by paying workers as little as possible. This leads to excessive exploitation of wage labor, causing underconsumption and a market glut."

....the quoted passages from.. http://michael-hudson.com/2015/10/the-paradox-of-financialized-industrialization/ .....which btw is a very good read....and yeah it does have a liberal bias but Hudson, unlike a great many astrologers, errr, economists actually deals with economic reality, not esoteric tea leaves, and as we all know reality and the facts derived from same have an acknowledged liberal bias...ergo....

....and that pretty well is the big picture....and yeah its based on Marx but youse gotta remember Marx was not a Marxist as we understand it today....he was first and foremost an economist...

Cheers

 

[python]

the following article answers some of my earlier questions to our canadian members about where the new liberal govt is likely to guide its foreign policy...the conclusions are most disappointing, imo... the same aggressive bidding of canada's big brother to the south. just w/o the conservative bluster.

Will Justin Trudeau Change Canadian Policy in the Middle East? -
See more at: http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/will-justin-trudeau-change-canadian-policy-middle-east-1244519278#sthash.VqQOP8Tw.dpuf

the following quote says it all

As MIT research fellow Jerome Klassen demonstrates in his monumentally important book Joining Empire, contemporary Canadian foreign policy under both the Liberals and the Conservatives has been guided by a corporate power bloc with vested interests in neoliberal globalisation and transnational warfare whose class-based project necessitates “disciplinary militarism towards the Third World”

.

 

[blutto]

Re:

the following article answers some of my earlier questions to our canadian members about where the new liberal govt is likely to guide its foreign policy...the conclusions are most disappointing, imo... the same aggressive bidding of canada's big brother to the south. just w/o the conservative bluster.

Will Justin Trudeau Change Canadian Policy in the Middle East? -
See more at: http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/will-justin-trudeau-change-canadian-policy-middle-east-1244519278#sthash.VqQOP8Tw.dpuf

the following quote says it all

As MIT research fellow Jerome Klassen demonstrates in his monumentally important book Joining Empire, contemporary Canadian foreign policy under both the Liberals and the Conservatives has been guided by a corporate power bloc with vested interests in neoliberal globalisation and transnational warfare whose class-based project necessitates “disciplinary militarism towards the Third World”

.

....well, Liberal governments made sure we weren't involved in any real way in Iraq and recently have announced they will be pulling Canadian fighter jets from the Syrian/Iraq theatres so maybe the quote doesn't say it all ... to view Canadian foreign policy in broad sweeps and generalizations is a bit silly...that being said Canada is a leading industrial power and does do things that will retain and expand that and sometimes badly very badly( our mining industry for example is not a shining example of being nice ) ....

...and btw that quote was from a book already written so how one can paint the actions of a not yet in power government using past examples is a bit puzzling...read, it says nothing about the future save for a extrapolation based on an interpretation...and you can draw conclusions from that ? interesting...

...and further btw Shupak, the author of the article, is an dyed in the wool ideologue ( think Echoes here) who one really should take with a very large sack of salt ( not to say he should be discounted entirely but the salt is necessary )...and that article is very heavy with coulda/shoulda/woulda which is always a sign to proceed with incredible caution..

....so a serious non-snarky question....given that we all live and operate in an industrialized world which model should we emulate to do better ?....

Cheers

 

[del1962]

Here is the guy you should consult

 

[python]

Re: Re:

the following article answers some of my earlier questions to our canadian members about where the new liberal govt is likely to guide its foreign policy...the conclusions are most disappointing, imo... the same aggressive bidding of canada's big brother to the south. just w/o the conservative bluster.

Will Justin Trudeau Change Canadian Policy in the Middle East? -
See more at: http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/will-justin-trudeau-change-canadian-policy-middle-east-1244519278#sthash.VqQOP8Tw.dpuf

the following quote says it all

As MIT research fellow Jerome Klassen demonstrates in his monumentally important book Joining Empire, contemporary Canadian foreign policy under both the Liberals and the Conservatives has been guided by a corporate power bloc with vested interests in neoliberal globalisation and transnational warfare whose class-based project necessitates “disciplinary militarism towards the Third World”

.

....well, Liberal governments made sure we weren't involved in any real way in Iraq and recently have announced they will be pulling Canadian fighter jets from the Syrian/Iraq theatres so maybe the quote doesn't say it all ... to view Canadian foreign policy in broad sweeps and generalizations is a bit silly...that being said Canada is a leading industrial power and does do things that will retain and expand that and sometimes badly very badly( our mining industry for example is not a shining example of being nice ) ....

...and btw that quote was from a book already written so how one can paint the actions of a not yet in power government using past examples is a bit puzzling...read, it says nothing about the future save for a extrapolation based on an interpretation...and you can draw conclusions from that ? interesting...

...and further btw Shupak, the author of the article, is an dyed in the wool ideologue ( think Echoes here) who one really should take with a very large sack of salt ( not to say discounted but the salt is necessary )...and that article is very heavy with coulda/shoulda/woulda which is always a sign to proceed with incredible caution..

....so a serious non-snarky question....given that we all live and operate in an industrialized world which model should we emulate to do better ?....

Cheers

to the bolded first...i don't know much about the author nor about the canadian foreign policy, mostly because i follow closely other regions. thus i asked my genuine questions. that the authors sounded a bit as an ideologue was clear from his frequent use of the word 'imperialistic'. nevertheless, he used concrete events and examples, perhaps with some pasion, that imo were interesting. i also do believe that the core of the us aggressive foreign policy at least in part (note the underlining) related to unceremonious transnational business that's more or less in cohutz with both the dems and reps. a reference to the similar corporate links in the canadian context makes sense to me...

regarding which industrial democratic model one should follow, i certainly have my preferences, but would NEVER set myself as low as suggest it should be right for canada or ANYY other country. i earnestly believe in self determination. i like the swiss and a scandinavian nordic model, minus perhaps the danes and the norwegian nato. not that there are no problems there...

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

the following article answers some of my earlier questions to our canadian members about where the new liberal govt is likely to guide its foreign policy...the conclusions are most disappointing, imo... the same aggressive bidding of canada's big brother to the south. just w/o the conservative bluster.

Will Justin Trudeau Change Canadian Policy in the Middle East? -
See more at: http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/will-justin-trudeau-change-canadian-policy-middle-east-1244519278#sthash.VqQOP8Tw.dpuf

the following quote says it all

As MIT research fellow Jerome Klassen demonstrates in his monumentally important book Joining Empire, contemporary Canadian foreign policy under both the Liberals and the Conservatives has been guided by a corporate power bloc with vested interests in neoliberal globalisation and transnational warfare whose class-based project necessitates “disciplinary militarism towards the Third World”

.

....well, Liberal governments made sure we weren't involved in any real way in Iraq and recently have announced they will be pulling Canadian fighter jets from the Syrian/Iraq theatres so maybe the quote doesn't say it all ... to view Canadian foreign policy in broad sweeps and generalizations is a bit silly...that being said Canada is a leading industrial power and does do things that will retain and expand that and sometimes badly very badly( our mining industry for example is not a shining example of being nice ) ....

...and btw that quote was from a book already written so how one can paint the actions of a not yet in power government using past examples is a bit puzzling...read, it says nothing about the future save for a extrapolation based on an interpretation...and you can draw conclusions from that ? interesting...

...and further btw Shupak, the author of the article, is an dyed in the wool ideologue ( think Echoes here) who one really should take with a very large sack of salt ( not to say discounted but the salt is necessary )...and that article is very heavy with coulda/shoulda/woulda which is always a sign to proceed with incredible caution..

....so a serious non-snarky question....given that we all live and operate in an industrialized world which model should we emulate to do better ?....

Cheers

to the bolded first...i don't know much about the author nor about the canadian foreign policy, mostly because i follow closely other regions. thus i asked my genuine questions. that the authors sounded a bit as an ideologue was clear from his frequent use of the word 'imperialistic'. nevertheless, he used concrete events and examples, perhaps with some pasion, that imo were interesting. i also do believe that the core of the us aggressive foreign policy at least in part (note the underlining) related to unceremonious transnational business that's more or less in cohutz with both the dems and reps. a reference to the similar corporate links in the canadian context makes sense to me...

regarding which industrial democratic model one should follow, i certainly have my preferences, but would NEVER set myself as low as suggest it should be right for canada or ANYY other country. i earnestly believe in self determination. i like the swiss and a scandinavian nordic model, minus perhaps the danes and the norwegian nato. not that there are no problems there...

......well the Swedes have proven(?), given the way they handled the Assange file, to be lap dogs of imperialist forces...the Finns were a bit of a disappointment with their handling of the Greek file by kowtowing to the doctrinaire EU line ....and then there are those outliers in Iceland who have definitely "kicked some shins" os of late but they are hardly intertwined with heavy duty industrialization/globalization...

....there is always the problem of dealing with realities that are often ugly....so maybe an ideal form exists but frankly I don't see it....but is just doing the best you can enough ?....

Cheers