Blog powered by Typepad

« Bye, bye, Bercow? | Main | Why didn't Woodrow and David kill Georges at Versailles? »

Thursday, 26 March 2015

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

American statecraft will need an American president and State Department. Right now we lack both. Any successful policy around the Pacific will require maximum respect for and cooperation with our traditional allies. This will be vital. This too is lacking.

I'm hoping, in vain maybe, that the AIIB diplomatic slap down might wake a few clueless fools in Washington. Our media gave that slap down virtually no coverage.

Ah well, 'Whiters', to paraphrase, you'll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of any democratic government.

I'm with Machiavelli, not Guicciardini.

As Machiavelli pointed out, a patchwork of Liberal states is easy to take, but difficult to hold. Whereas a monolithic autocracy is difficult to take, but easy to hold.

US policy to try and hold together the Liberal states in a stance against China is difficult, and the chance of failure high, but that doesn't make it wrong. One must just struggle to keep the herd together.

One must remember that China is a vile place politically, and embracing its institutions will only spread its vileness, corruption, gangsterism, etc., into our own.

As AEP says, China is collapsing under its own contradictions, why should we prolong it?

The ordinary citizen ultimately benefits from a steadfast, solidarity in the Liberal states of the West against an illiberal enemy. The cold war for example. We got on just fine without Russia and China, and guess what, without our institutions buddying up and helping them out, they collapsed under the weight of their own contradictions - to the great benefit of the ordinary citizens of West and East.

AEP thinks only of the political classes when he constructs this argument that the West should intermingle with tyranny. It suits Western political and business leaders just fine, of course! But the ordinary people pay the price.

This comes from AEP's background in economics, where ordinary people are mere "human resources".

AEP should stick to economics and leave the politics to someone else.

SoD

Lawrence, check my latest post, or better still check the link to Zero Hedge. Also, one of these days you might like to write a post on your thoughts on the progress of 'robotics'.

The key thing to take on board about robotics is that it's ok to be a chav. Eventually, everyone will be a chav. When robotic production's output exceeds need and enters the want level of output, even the handful of very bright, over-worked, stress-monkeys who run the robotic complex will say "fuck this for a game of soldiers", and join the chav-masse.

The big obstruction to this natural progression to the "leisure age" is social-democracy. In particular, the vast bureaucracy of the public sector and the private sector monopoly corporates. This sector harbours an ocean of "in denial chavs", who instead of doing a do nothing job on £40k per annum, should kick back and enjoy a life of leisure on £14k per annum. That would eradicate the deficit and let the handful of propeller-heads expand their production and output. Soon £14k per annum would become £40k per annum, and they could still be sitting on their arses doing f'all.

(For the benefit of the ex-colonials, "chav" is someone who doesn't work, is funded by benefits, and spends the entire day watching daytime TV, or reading Shakespeare, controversial books, and posting to their blog about it, or somewhere in between).


SoD

"For the benefit of the ex-colonials, "chav" is someone who doesn't work, is funded by benefits, and spends the entire day watching daytime TV, or reading Shakespeare, controversial books, and posting to their blog about it, or somewhere in between."

I'd found myself wondering about that "chav" label Lawrence. I take it you have an example to hand?

Arkies are a curious lot.

Oi, YOU! 'Oo you callin' a Chav? And when are they goin' to put my pension up?

Lawrence, thanks for the definition of "chav". Curiosity had me hunting for my Funk and Wagnalls. Over here, that term would largely describe the base of the Democrat party.

And over here, "that term would largely describe the base of the Democrat party."

As well as former staffers for, the not stood for election in recent cycles, the *no longer "serving,"* indeed, all former officeholders retaining 98.6° of both the Democratic and Republican parties.

The comments to this entry are closed.