Category Archives: Foreign Policy

The Death Of The Mighty Dollar

China, Economy, Federal Reserve Bank, Foreign Policy, Individual Rights, Inflation

The trashing of the dollar by Bush/Barack is worrying those to whom we’ve been exporting our inflation. The US’s relationship with China is another fiasco. We’ve relied on that country to finance our debt, but kept up the sanctimonious preaching. (Search BAB’s “China” archive for details.)

How do you like that for hypocrisy, to say nothing of a performative contradiction? Preaching about human rights and individual rights while simultaneously fleecing your own people without flinching!

The patient Asians took what we dished, but now, they’re getting nervous about their finances.

From the FT.com:

China’s central bank on Monday proposed replacing the US dollar as the international reserve currency with a new global system controlled by the International Monetary Fund.

In an essay posted on the People’s Bank of China’s website, Zhou Xiaochuan, the central bank’s governor, said the goal would be to create a reserve currency “that is disconnected from individual nations and is able to remain stable in the long run, thus removing the inherent deficiencies caused by using credit-based national currencies”.

Analysts said the proposal was an indication of Beijing’s fears that actions being taken to save the domestic US economy would have a negative impact on China.

“This is a clear sign that China, as the largest holder of US dollar financial assets, is concerned about the potential inflationary risk of the US Federal Reserve printing money,” said Qu Hongbin, chief China economist for HSBC.

Although Mr Zhou did not mention the US dollar, the essay gave a pointed critique of the current dollar-dominated monetary system.

Update II: Rush To Judgment: Limbaugh’s CPAC Speech

Conservatism, Constitution, Foreign Policy, Free Will Vs. Determinism, IMMIGRATION, Inflation, Republicans, Ron Paul

We want to give credit where it’s due. Rush Limbaugh at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. was charismatic, well spoken (he even corrects his mistakes mid-sentence, which points to a welcome fastidiousness about the language), passionate, and sincere.
As opposed to most pundits, Limbaugh doesn’t require lengthy de-Nazification efforts; he needs only a few weeks at the feet of Congressman Ron Paul.

I optimized the time Limbaugh talked by both listening and mopping the wooden floors. Here are some of the problems I have with Limbaugh’s impassioned CPAC speech. Feel free to add to them:

• I didn’t hear a word about the reliable role of Republicans as engines of government growth. And Bush, in particular. Bush set the scene for Barack. Bush began what BHO is completing. Stimulus, bailouts, a house for every Hispanic—these are programs Bush developed, or signed on to, as I and other libertarians have documented. For an account of the Republican’s “inglorious tradition” of growing government, I recommend “Republicans and Big Government,” by my pal Jim Ostrowski.

• Rush failed to religiously pair the need for tax cuts with a ruthless slashing of government. Bush grew government while, at the same time, cutting taxes. Deficit spending, however, is financed by borrowing or inflating the money supply. The latter is the most vicious and insidious of taxes. (Read why.) Until conservatives get beyond piss-easy populism and stretch their minds to learn some REAL economics, beyond the “tax cut” mantra, there is no hope for them. Rush mentioned von Hayek; why not read his work on the business cycle?

• When it comes to his view of human nature, Rush is a big egalitarian. What do I mean? As an impediment to individual achievement, he cited the disabling and crippling role of the welfare state. Fair enough. However, that is not a qualitatively different argument than the one advanced by left-liberals.
In the nature-nurture debate, liberals reduce man’s plight to adverse social conditions: Crime, they say, is because of poverty, patriarchy, powerlessness (I’ve lots count of the “P”s). Rush is merely rendering his deterministic complement to that of the liberals: they say too little intervention; he says too much of it. The conservative truth is that people differ in potential. Live with it! Phenotype or genotype: our genes encode both the way we look and, to a large degree, how well we can think. Once again, Rush’s view of human nature doesn’t depart significantly from the view his liberal foes hold.

Egalitarianism is the enemy of liberty. As I’ve said, just as most of us can’t aspire to Heidi Klum’s countenance, no amount of freedom will imbue us all with an equal standard of living, which is a function, to a large extent, of out abilities.
A conservative view of nature is one that acknowledges the kind if differences that make the reality of poverty and other evils inescapable. Capitalism may amplify differences in wealth as it allows the able to fully express their abilities. But it also reduces levels of poverty. The poor are richer under capitalism because employment and opportunity are optimized.

• Not a word did Limbaugh say about the Warfare State, which is every bit as corrupt and corrupting as the welfare state. We spend over a trillion annually on empire. What kind of a nation neglects its own borders while defending borders not its own? A nation of cowards. There is a war on the border with Mexico. It’s spilling over. Where is the brave military? This is quintessential neo-conservatism as I defined it on January 16, 2004 (mentioned here by Larry Auster): “Inviting an invasion by foreigners and instigating one against them are two sides of the same neoconservative coin.” Rush did not denounce this borderless, expansionist agenda.

• I have news for Rush: contrary to his assertion, freedom is not the natural condition of the human heart. That’s liberal/neoconservative claptrap. All people want freedom for themselves, that much is true. But not everyone is willing to let his adversaries enjoy their freedoms. I wish Republicans would try thinking beyond clichés–the kind that led to their invasion of Iraq.

Update: Speaking of Larry Auster, this is what the traditionalist commentator writes under the heading, “This is our leader?”:

Rush Limbaugh is addressing the C-PAC conference. Am I supposed to care? Am I supposed to see this loud-mouth as the leader of conservatives against Obama’s attempted socialist takeover of America? Where was El Slowbo for the last eight years? I’ll tell you where he was. He was, with all the energy and devotion of which he is capable, carrying George W. Bush’s water while Bush advanced such proposals as the “American Dream Down Payment Plan,” which landed us in our current situation.

Update II (March 2): Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, trashed Rush Limbaugh. Steele called the Talker an entertainer, and his show incendiary, ugly entertainment.

Ann Coulter has expressed her disappointment. The Conservative Queen Bee also spoke favorably about Steele being good on TV. I guess she meant eye candy, because she immediately launched, on the Glenn Beck Show, into a paean to the babes of the Republican Party. (Here is the story of one such brassy babe.)

In any event, I say let Limbaugh and Steele have at it. I’ve listened to Steele; he’s utterly eager to pacify, placate and attract the ethnic vote. This is a black John McCain. The Republicans have a deficit in principles, not diversity. Yet Steele keeps carping about the need to “appeal” to those voracious minorities. With what? More stolen stuff?

Yes, stealing Steele is among the cadre of Republicans (a Rovian) calling for a more upbeat and diverse GOP, when in fact that GOP has gone all out for minorities (to no avail) and stuck it to the base.

I hope the two men smart for some time to come, and that more chasms open up like gashes in the GOP. Out of chaos maybe some order will come, by which I mean an articulation of a rightist, ordered liberty. Let the rightist faction break away, recapture the base and then the Party.

Update III: Take This, Mr. President, For Ramos And Compean

Bush, Foreign Policy, Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Iraq, Justice, Law, Middle East, War

The excerpt is from my new WND column, “Take This, Mr. President, For Ramos And Compean“:

“Their names are nowhere on the list of pardons and commutations George W. Bush has issued before saying adieu. They are the brave Border-Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.” …

“There was no justice, poetic or other, in the convictions of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.”

“Had Ramos and Compean been shooting up Iraqis while defending that occupied country’s borders, Bush would be pinning purple hearts to their lapels.”

“As luck would have it, a brave Baghdadi journalist stood up to the bully. In what will go down as the high-water mark of his career, journalist Muntadhar al-Zeidi lobbed a loafer at Bush for invading his country, during the president’s last official trip to that country.”

Iraqis, tens of thousands of whom were killed and millions displaced, have every reason to throw boots, baklava and even bombs at Bush. But they’ve come a long way. Shoe tossing is much better than bomb throwing.

“Speaking of significant progress, the Muslim world responded to the melee in a thoroughly American way. The man—Muntadhar—and the moment became iconic, immortalized on YouTube, and replayed over and over again around the world.”

“Even better: the shoe became a best-selling brand. …”

Read the complete column, “Take This, Mr. President, For Ramos And Compean,” on WND.

Update II (Jan. 2): “withered little cretin” aka George (Bush), according to W. Grigg. That’s about right.

Update III (Jan. 3): “The trial of the Iraqi man who threw his shoes at US President George W Bush earlier this month has been postponed. … A spokesman for Iraq’s Central Criminal Court said the decision to postpone the trial was made following an appeal by Mr Zaidi’s lawyers. A new trial date would be set later, Abdel Sattar Beyraqdar told the AFP news agency. The lesser charge would incur a maximum sentence of two years.”

Beat This, Barack

Barack Obama, Bush, Economy, Foreign Policy, Government

Obama apparatchiks of change like to accuse Bush of starving state programs when in fact he has presided over the greatest expansion of government since Lyndon B. Johnson. The truth is that Bush’s party, the Republicans Party, has always come through as a “reliable engine of government growth.”

Since 2001, reports the Wall Street Journal, federal outlays have increased to the tune of 16 percent on energy, 91 percent on “community development,” 22 percent on highways and mass transit, 57 percent on education, 55 percent on health research, 58 percent on veteran benefits, 51 percent on Medicare, 16 percent on social security, and a walloping 64 percent on national defense.

In case you forget the costs of America’s crumbling empire: economist Robert Higgs has pegged all “defense-related” spending at approximately $1 trillion per year.

Sadly, Barack will best Bush in spades.