The G20 Conundrum - Let 10,000 Bloggers Flower

The Blogosphere at large is abuzz with comments and paroxysms over the closing declaration from the recent G20 meeting. Real economists, such as Paul Krugman, and many simple hand wringers, are adamant in stating that the United States must continue to stimulate its economy. President Obama, and his Treasury Secretary, say yes, so I guess the answer must be yes. For most of the other G20 attendees, the answer is no (for now). So except for the U.S., those running large budget deficits will tame those deficits, and do so in the near term. Dr. Krugman is nearly apoplectic at this. He writes in the June 28 New York Times that such a policy will ensure a "third depression." I'm not sure whether Dr. Krugman is a Keynesian or not, but he sure isn't afraid of deficits, or a rapidly growing U.S. sovereign debt.

Obama, Geithner, Krugman, and company don't seem to get a fundamental truth, to wit: the greatest impediment to continued economic stimulation, i.e., continuing to print money, and taking on government debt, is the EXISTING government debt. It's true that Keynesian theory calls for using government debt to stimulate economies, but it also calls for accumulating budget surpluses in prosperous years in order to have funds available to support those lean year deficits. We forgot that the necessary accompaniment to the lean year deficit is the fat year surplus. It's as old as the Book of Exodus.

At this point, stimulation means wholesale printing of money, which typically leads to inflation. We think that, because we haven't experienced inflation since the Vietnam era, we cannot do so again. I've actually heard supposedly credible journalists suggest that inflation has been permanently tamed, as if it were a living thing, instead of a phenomenon based on mathematical and physical factors. Tamed? According to David Einhorn, of Greenlight Capital, "government statistics are about the last place one should look to find inflation, as they are designed to not show much. Over the last 35 years, the government has changed the way it calculates inflation several times. According to the web site Shadow Government Statistics, using the pre-1980 method, the Consumer Price Index would be over 9 percent, compared with about 2 percent in the official statistics today." Inflating the money supply leads to inflation. No matter how you cook the books, eventually it will happen. The only thing holding it back right now may be our hollowed out industrial infrastructure, and the fake figures.

Mr. President, your counterparts in the G20 are telling their people that they aren't going to be able to have cake and ice cream every night anymore. On the other hand, Mr. Obama, and his acolyte, Treasury Secretary Geithner, are saying "yes, yes, we know, no more cake and ice cream, but we can't stop quite yet. In fact, we're not sure when it's safe to stop. We'll get back to you. Trust us." It's quite true that it was George W. Bush and Company that jacked up the deficit over a trillion dollars, insisting that anything less would bring the country to its knees, but Bush is gone, and suddenly we're projecting trillion dollar deficits out as far as there are meaningful budget figures. How did that happen? Was this a "Bush did it, so we should be able to do it too" moment? How did a one year stimulus turn into a permanent expansion of government? More frightening yet is the fact that all this debt doesn't include the coming unfunded Social Security bomb. It's Armageddon, and the bill is no longer going to our kids, it's coming due in OUR lifetimes.

I hear tell that there's an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond who is tired of non-economist bloggers writing about economics. OK. Here's the deal. I'll stop writing this stuff as soon as the Fed cleans up its act. Fair is fair.

Peace and love...

My Letter To Mr. Thomas Friedman Concerning His 27 June 2010 Column In The New York Times

On Sunday, 27 June, Mr. Thomas Friedman wrote a column in the New York Times titled "War, Timeout, War, Time, ..." The column suggested that it was time for Israel to offer "a daring and assertive political initiative to the Palestinians." While I agree with Mr. Friedman in principle, there are a few wrinkles that the international press could help with. My letter explains.

-------------------------------------
Sir, I read your Sunday column, and heard you reprise it on CNN. It seems to me that there is a fallacy at the core of your assumption about what Israel should do with respect to the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank. You've given the Palestinians a free pass. Yes, the Palestinian English language media sounds pretty reasonable, but you know what their Arab language media says. I'll bet you know what their text books say (especially their geography books). Do you remember the deal that Arafat walked away from in the late 90's? He said that he had to do it, because he would be assassinated if he took it. What he was essentially saying was that he could only settle for 100 per cent (his chunk of Jerusalem, right of return for everyone, to wherever they said they were uprooted from). If so, then there really isn't any negotiating to be done, is there? We're just waiting for Israel to give the Palestinians everything they want. The amount of negative, anti Israel, and anti Jewish activity on the Palestinian side is extraordinary, but it's only in Arabic, and Israelis appear to be the only ones who know about it. It's not AIPAC or West Banker propaganda, but the West appears afraid to talk about it, for fear of upsetting the Palestinians. Is Palestinian governance that fragile? This behavior runs from the unauthorized, and destructive digs on the Temple Mount, through the blatant Palestinian attempt to "prove" that Jerusalem was never a Jewish city, and right into the hate and bogus history fed to Palestinian school children. In the face of this, how exactly is an Israeli Prime Minister supposed to take on HIS radicals? It would be nice to see a little unbiased, consistent light shined on these items. Could you you stand the heat of writing a series of columns on this subject?

A Short Comment On The Departure of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal

This will be very short. The boy was insubordinate. He had to go. Anything more would be blather. Have a nice day.

More Fiddling As

On 15 June 2010, Mr. Thomas Friedman published a column in the New York Times titled “Letter From Istanbul.” Mr. Friedman is worried that we are “losing” Turkey. He places some of the blame on the Christians in the European Union, who apparently haven't made good on their promise to invite Turkey into their midst, after promising to do so, and on weak United States foreign policy. Tom Friedman should be smarter than this, but ever since his “The World is Flat” franchise began to fall flat, his judgment has seemed pretty poor. Let me get this straight, Tom. You went to a country that's actively building an alliance with the barbarians ruling Iran, Syria, and the Hezbollah organization. Turkey is a country led by a prime minister who sponsored a run against the Israeli blockade of Gaza, then stocked the lead vessel with radio coordinated thugs, ready to attack the Israeli borders with pipes and knives, then claim the Israelis brutalized them. Now, you ask this country's prime minister why he's so busy setting up a common command center with all these thugs and international criminals, and the answer is something to the effect that the EU has made it clear that it is for Christians, so Turkey is turning its attention elsewhere. Do you really believe anything that comes out of this guy's mouth, Mr. Friedman? What possible reason would an Islamist have for wanting to unite with a Europe that would not want in its midst an Islamist state? Mr. Friedman thinks that Turkey spent the last four years jumping through hoops, trying to qualify for EU membership. Gee, if Mr. Erdogan, the buddy of Iran and Syria, says so, it must be so, but let's try this. Erdogan spent the last four years purging the armed forces of professionals, replacing them with politically reliable Islamists, and otherwise solidifying his party's position.

Mr. Erdogan's Islamist party changed its name to “Justice and Development” after being disqualified from elections under Turkey's secular state laws. It was a name change, only – a sham. Now that he's in power, Mr. Erdogan has invited most of the Muslim world's monsters to Ankara to play, including the criminals running Iran and Sudan. No, Mr. Friedman, nothing the EU could have done would have changed what has happened in Turkey. Nothing. From the moment the Islamists took power, it was clear that Turkey was on the path to an Islamic state. That means that another state might be full of mass murderers, but it can be a good friend of Turkey, simply because it is “Islamic”. How charming. Mr. Friedman can now go back to his laptop, where he can prepare subsequent columns, lecturing us on how we in the West could have prevented Turkey from slipping away into the Islamic camp, if we had only offered it the right enticements, just as, throughout the ages we in the West failed to offer just the right “enticements” to the Nazis, Soviets, North Koreans, Palestinians, Iranians, Sudanese, Serbs, and the rest of the butchers whom we've let march through the world because we just didn't give them the one last thing that really would have made them behave. The West always screws up and sets off the bad guys who really wanted to be good.

The day the Justice and Development party won election, Turkey's path into the Islamist camp, with all the radicalism that entails, was set. Q.E.D. Now Mr. Friedman, having gotten a shot at putting Mr. Edrogan on the journalistic couch, can begin writing what western intellectuals write best – why the western democracies are responsible for everything bad that happens. If all international murderers will line up single file on the left, Security Council personnel will be passing out free passes to all who need them.

There's an interesting bit of irony at work in Turkey. Turkish authorities have blocked access to Google and Wikipedia, because it's possible to find information with these sites that is demeaning to Atatürk, the founder of the modern Turkish state. Such information is unlawful in Turkey. Simultaneously, the Turkish government is dissolving the secular state that Atatürk created. These information controls help isolate the population, facilitating the change. China has shared with Iran the software that it uses to isolate it's population from “harmful” Internet content. Perhaps Iran can now share this software with Turkey, to help preserve the facade of he modern Turkish state. Watch this space.

Freedom, Liberty, Permissiveness

This post is in the form of a quote from Alistair Cooke. At this point in our existence, it is a cautionary note worth considering. We are currently much more interested in fine tuning our rights than our responsibilities. Enjoy:

"As for the rage to believe that we have found the secret of liberty in general permissiveness from the cradle on, this seems to me a disastrous sentimentality, which, whatever liberties it sets loose, loosens also the cement that alone can bind society into a stable compound -- a code of obeyed taboos. I can only recall the saying of a wise Frenchman that `liberty is the luxury of self-discipline.' Historically, those peoples that did not discipline themselves had discipline thrust on them from the outside. That is why the normal cycle in the life and death of great nations has been first a powerful tyranny broken by revolt, the enjoyment of liberty, the abuse of liberty -- and back to tyranny again. As I see it, in this country -- a land of the most persistent idealism and the blandest cynicism -- the race is on between its decadence and its vitality."
-- Alistair Cooke

China: The Great Irredentist, With Demands Coming To A Border Near You

The northeast Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh has long been claimed, by China, as part of Tibet (although when Tibet was an independent nation a century ago, it agreed that Arunachal Pradesh was part of India). Arunachal Pradesh has a population of about a million people, spread among 84,000 mountainous square kilometers. This is not an area of great apparent value. China and India fought a nasty little war over Arunachal Pradesh in 1962.

Since the conclusion of the Sino-Indian War, India has looked more to Pakistan than China as a threat, but that is rapidly changing. Recently, China began improving the military support infrastructure on its side of the border. Additionally, Chinese troops have crossed the border into Indian territory and built small structures. India is responding accordingly.

Why does China claim this little bit of India? Because it was once part of Tibet, and Tibet was once part of China, and now is again. As far as China is concerned, if any square inch of another country was ever part of China, it must be re-absorbed into China. To ensure there would be no ambiguity in the case of Tibet, China invaded in 1950, and has spent the last sixty years destroying Tibetan culture, primarily by destroying the Tibetan religious infrastructure, and re-settling hundreds of thousands of Han Chinese in Tibet. As in China itself, the Han Chinese are coming to dominate, whether they are in the majority or not. China also spends a great deal of time "proving" that there never really was a Tibetan culture, and that Tibetans are now better off than they ever were before.

The Tibet situation can seem a bit silly (to everyone except Tibetans) when it's pressed before the public by such Hollywood buffoons as Richard Gere, but it is illustrative of a larger issue that the international community will be facing, whether it wants to or not, in the next few decades.

China has major claims to many of its neighbor's territory, and to international maritime territory. While it may attempt to enforce some of these claims via international legal bodies, China will be pleased to enforce its claims by force if it considers the costs low enough. What would the gains be? That may be difficult for westerners to understand. China is one of the great victim cultures of the modern era. She is convinced that the only reason that every bit of territory that was ever hers is not still hers lies in her victimization by western colonial powers. She knows that, no matter what she may do to recover what she believes is hers, the west will eventually accept her conquests if she just holds on long enough. As a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council, no Chinese misdeed, however grievous, will ever come before that august, if hapless body. There can be no sanctions on China. Where would we get our cell phones and toaster ovens?

Chinese claims are not well understood by most westerners. Online research suggests that, aside from the Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh claims, few westerners are aware of the extent of Chinese claims, many of which rely on ancient history, and conflict with settled international law. Given China's rising military power, lack of respect for the rule of law, status as a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council, role as primary manufacturer of much of our technical infrastructure, and initiator of several major information warfare attacks on the United States, perhaps we should be a little concerned, no?

Here are a few areas of concern:

Area: Taiwan
Counter Party: Republic of Taiwan

Area: Arunachal Pradesh
Counter Party: India

Area: Koguryo
Counter Party: North Korea

Area:Various
Counter Party: Vietnam (this has been "settled" twice - watch for more)

Area: South China Sea
Counter Party: All Bordering Nations

China essentially claims the entire South China Sea, up to the territorial waters of all other coastal nations. This would contravene current international law and treaties. China claims a long standing historical claim. The British, based on their colonial period, may have a more compelling claim (only kidding).

Good places to search for Chinese territorial claims are maps in current textbooks, and current postage stamps. Both carefully reflect official policy of the one party state.

Comment On Abby Sunderland's Attempt to Circumnavigate The World Singlehanded

Sixteen year old Abby Sunderland has been rescued in the Southern Ocean. She failed in her attempt to become the youngest person to sail non-stop, single handed, around the world. Having had to stop in Cape Town for repairs, she decide to complete her voyage, even though she wouldn't be setting any records. In the final analysis, Abby's voyage was a stunt. It's true that people have been sailing, single handed, in the open ocean, for a good long time, but most had a heck of a lot more experience than Abby. The real key to understanding Abby's level of comfort and experience was hearing how unnerved she was when she got up one morning, to find that she couldn't get the engine started to charge the batteries for the auto pilot. Gosh. Maybe that cute little solar panel wasn't up to the task. The most critical emergency skills for any open ocean sailor (aside from pure survival), even for relatively short, point to point voyages, would be alternative rigging and self steering arrangements. It doesn't sound like Abby was too strong in the second area. I suspect that Abby never would have undertaken this voyage before the era of GPS, satellite phones, and SARSAT (oh, and, yes, high tech, low drain auto pilots). Can you imagine this voyage thirty years ago, with her parents anxiously awaiting a phone call from a ship's agent, stating that the S.S. "such and such" had passed Abby's boat, that she was fine, and sent her greetings?

There is no chance that sixteen year old Abby could have accumulated enough off shore sailing experience to have undertaken her voyage safely. That doesn't mean that she couldn't complete her voyage. Two teenagers had recently done so, and Abby was off trying to break their "records", but I'd suggest the following. For the experienced mariner, completing such a voyage, in a small sailboat (rather than a large, ocean going sailing vessel), is probably fifty per cent seamanship, and fifty percent luck. Having spent a career at sea in naval vessels, I've seen too many things, natural and man made, that can do-in a small sailboat (yes, even one of sixty or eighty feet). There are floating containers, lumber, logs, steel construction pilings, other miscellaneous escaped deck cargo, whales, ships with negligent or (apparently) non-existent deck watches, large waves, out of synch waves, and the list goes on. A careful inspection of Abby's boat suggests that, while she may have had seamanship skills, to a great extent, she was presiding over a collection of machinery and technology.

On 25 April, Abby wrote in her blog:

"I have some big news today. It's not necessarily good news, but the way I look at it, it's not bad either. I am going to be pulling into Cape Town for repairs thus ending my non-stop attempt. My whole team and I have been discussing whether or not I need to stop ever since my main auto pilot died. It's one thing to sail across an ocean with one well-working auto pilot, it's another to keep going with one that is not at all reliable. It would be foolish and irresponsible for me to keep going with my equipment not working well. I'm about 10-14 days from Cape Town right now and though my auto pilot is working for now, we're all holding our breath and hoping it will last."

Well, that's just fine. She did get the foolish part correct. Perhaps Dad should have bought her a copy of "Self Steering for Sailboats." How about a series of emergency procedures, one of which begins with "the electrical system shorts out." Perhaps she didn't need these procedures, because each one would say the same thing: "Replace with spare" or "activate emergency beacon." It didn't matter; Abby's voyage came to an end due to a dismasting, not due to a breakdown in technology, but her reliance on technology suggests that she might have needed about eighty percent or more luck in her bag of tricks.

So, Abby and her family were smart enough to get paying sponsors for her voyage, and she was brave enough to go to sea alone, but either not smart enough, or not experienced enough to know that she shouldn't have. She's alive because she went to sea in the twenty-first century. The captain of the ship that rescued her got washed into the water during the rescue. The time to unconsciousness in 40 degree F water is about fifteen minutes, so he got lucky, even in a survival suit. How easy do you think it is to rescue someone thirty foot seas? How easy do you think it is to injure someone while trying to fish a person out of the drink in thirty foot seas? Was Abby worth it? It doesn't matter. No mariner will fail to attempt to rescue another mariner in distress. As for Abby's publicity hungry parents - someone should teach them the wicked hard lesson that they were unwilling to teach their over indulged daughter.

Stunt. Bring on the next publicity seeker.

Turkish Politics, Israel, and a Little Self Delusion

A recent Wall Street Journal article about Mr. Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minister, is a nice compliment to my recent comments on Turkish sponsorship of the recent effort to break the Israeli "blockade" of Gaza. I use the term blockade because that is the term in general usage in the international press. I place it in quotes because it seems to me to more resemble a quarantine, since some items are permitted in. Kindly see the article below, noting the following: Turkey is nowhere near as much a western country as Europeans and Americans would like to think. While all countries have national myths, Turkey's may be uniquely powerful, and most significantly, uniquely at odds with the truth. I'll admit my bias - as a child, I knew a survivor of the Armenian genocide (sorry, for all you Turks, it's just the "Joint Turkish-Armenian Misunderstanding).

For the full story, please see: http://www.meforum.org/2668/erdogan-and-the-israel-card

My Take On The Recent Turkish Sponsored Attempt to Break the Israeli Blockade of Gaza

Note: This was slightly revised on 7 June

My Take On The Recent Turkish Sponsored Attempt to Break the Israeli Blockade of Gaza

My take appears to be unique, so I wonder that I might be way off, but I'm throwing it out there, because it smells right, and in the condemnation of Israel I smell a rat. Rather than argue the case in a narrative, I intend to begin by presenting certain facts.

1. The government of Gaza has publicly committed itself to the destruction if Israel. While it is not currently launching rockets at Israel, it has done so in the past, and takes no measures to deter its citizens from doing so now. As such, the government of Gaza constitutes a belligerent.

2. Israel has imposed a blockade against a belligerent that she is facing. Suggesting that the blockade is illegal collective punishment suggests that people are not responsible for the government that they have elected.

3. The sponsorship of the mission to break the Gaza blockade by a Turkish charity with close ties to the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Recap Erdogan, is not a coincidence. The current Turkish government has been steadily pushing Turkey into the Islamist camp. Having once been disqualified from running due to its non-secular nature, the current Turkish ruling party (the bJustice and Development Party, or AKP) carefully cleansed itself externally, so as to qualify for the ballot. Having won the election, they began purging the military at the senior and mid grade officer level. Officers at these levels have traditionally seen themselves as guardians of the modern Turkish secular state. The party, having now protected themselves from the guardians of secularism, has moved to permit more overt public expressions of Islam. They are beginning to dismantle the modern Turkish secular state. They also canceled joint military exercises with Israel, and began close military cooperation with Iran and Syria. The sponsorship of the Gaza blockade run was just the most recent effort on the part of Turkey to make its bones in the Islamist world. The fact that people on board the Turkish Ferry Marvi Marmara were able to incite violence (the pipe swinging folks on deck are pretty good evidence, unless the Israelis faked it) just solidified the Turkish position. They now have solid Islamist credentials, and can continue dismantling Ataturk's state.

What does this mean for NATO? A member state is now exchanging military information with two strong supporters of state terrorism. Hey, you be the judge. While you're at it, for extra credit, judge whether NATO itself has a future.