Tuesday, 11 November 2008

Reagan and America's decline

It’s been said that if you have the name of rising early, you can lie in bed all day. I bear this in mind when I try to identify the causes of America’s dramatic decline over the last few decades.

Where did America go wrong, and who was mainly responsible? Quite obviously there’s no simple answer to this, but I propose here that it was mainly due to the loss of real conservative values, and furthermore, that the original culprit was that poster-boy of American conservatism, Ronald Reagan.

Sure Reagan made a career out of flag-waving and repeating meaningless ‘conservative’ bromides. ‘Shining city on the hill’, ‘morning in America’, ‘indispensable nation’ - all that bullshit. But he fatally undermined what I believe were the real conservative values that made America great: honest and hard work, deferred gratification, saving for a rainy day, paying as you go, neighbourly self-help. Those kinds of things.

Of course Reagan paid lip service to these concepts, but it was only lip service. And here I contrast him with the much reviled Jimmy Carter. Taking over just as the Vietnam War finished, Carter recognised a vital watershed. It was the first major war the US undertook that was financed by borrowing – the general public took no financial hit.

Carter also recognized that America was rapidly transforming from a country that produced about 80% of what it needed for itself to one becoming dangerously dependent on foreign imports, especially oil. In the process heading towards being a debtor nation, rather than the world’s biggest creditor.

He understood the corrosive impact this would have on society at large, not just the economy. The founding principles were being undermined. He called it a crisis that 'strikes at the heart and soul of our national will, and poses a mortal danger’. Now there’s nothing Americans like better than a new enemy to fight, but they were immediately disappointed when Carter in effect said ‘we have seen the enemy – and we are it’.

The Great American Public didn’t like this at all. They were quite happy to continue, as Carter put it, to ‘worship self-indulgence and consumption’ and to ‘continue to pile up material possessions’. Which of us wouldn’t, I suppose? In any event, it was a tipping point, because Reagan could tap into the zeitgeist in a way that Carter never could, and he made mincemeat of him in the Presidential Election that followed about a year later.

He did so not least on the basis of letting the good times roll (‘morning in America’) and spending what you liked – the bills would never have to be paid. Under Reagan, personal and national debt skyrocketed. And in his enthusiasm for free trade he allowed his cronies in the business world to export American jobs to low cost economies, and relaxed immigration controls to provide the same cronies with cheap internal labour.

While the pride of American industry – high-end manufacturing – was being systematically exported, the ‘defence’ budget was turbo-charged. Whereas this was clearly a response to powerful lobbying, there was also a more strategic goal. While Carter’s solution to the energy problem was to use less, develop greater thermal efficiencies, economise and explore alternative fuels, Reagan’s was to use military might to dominate the main sources of oil, and hence ensure non-stop supplies.

Reagan believed, or professed to believe, that if you got government out of the way, everything would be just fine. With this in mind his people introduced sweeping deregulation of the finance industry, especially the Savings & Loans sector. New legislation encouraged the S&Ls to emphasise profits at the expense of providing mortgages to home buyers. The crooks duly cut loose and the result was the greatest financial scandal – organised theft - in American history. The taxpayer picked up a tab amounting to trillions of dollars.

Sound familiar?

(Incidentally, the Bush ‘family’ – I use that term advisedly – had their snouts deeply in this particular trough, making millions as the scandal unfolded. Again, free enterprise for the ordinary person, socialism for the rich.).

So all the main drivers of the country’s current problems - financial profligacy, destruction of high-end manufacturing and mass outsourcing of jobs, financial chicanery dressed up as deregulation, mass immigration and dependancy on potentially hostile countries, - originated with Reagan. Yet he’s seen as the last President who maintained America’s ‘greatness’, and his reputation is up there with the stalwarts of history.

Reagan wasn’t a conservative, he simply mastered the medium to implement a radical and hugely destructive programme. ‘If you’ve the name of rising early………..

46 comments:

Georgie Casey said...

Globalisation, free trade and outsourcing of jobs to lower cost countries is good for everyone, US included. The US owns the capital and controls factories in lower cost countries. Cheaper goods benefit consumers. Low paid jobs for 3rd world poor people are still better than no job.

It's a fundamental shift from low margin manufacturing to high margin services, the United States proving once again that they can adapt to anything.

The public debt under Reagan was high because he spent huge amount on defence spending to defeat communism which he did, freeing over 1 billion people from slavery. Money well spent I'd say.

Reagan was the greatest president since Lincoln.

Your anti-Americanism is weird seeing as the US has the best solution there is to your problem of different races intergrating, which is huge spending on law and order. If you break a crime in the US you will go to jail, everyones knows that. I don't know what the percentage is of Blacks under 25 in US jails but I remember it being high and it's all money well spent. And for every 10 drug dealer scumbags you get a law abiding lawyer, doctor or accountant! US truly is the land of opportunity no matter what colour or creed you are.

That's the best solution to this problem. Closing all borders would cripple the world economy in this globalised age. The benefits far outweigh the costs. Of course in Ireland we don't do that. Criminals whether they're Irish or foreign know the Irish justice system is lenient and guards don't have enough power.

Anonymous said...

Savant,
Any President who did put an end the 1965 immigration act and also stop illegal immigration is responsible so that means all of them since the mid-sixties.

Jockney

Anonymous said...

georgie casey - why does any critism of something or someone mean you're 'anti'. The things said in this post, and things 10 times worse, have been said by Americans. Does this mean they're anti-American?

get sense man.

K. O'B.

Anonymous said...

President Reagan lifted the country when it was at its lowest ebb. How dare you say these things about him.

Proud redneck

Anonymous said...

Savant said "values that made America great: honest and hard work, deferred gratification, saving for a rainy day, paying as you go, neighbourly self-help"

And this is Anti-American???

With enemies like that who needs friends?

Georgie Casey said...

Ok, anti-Americanism is a bit strong, I'm just surprised he's a not a fervent supporter of America.

Anonymous said...

It was the first major war the US undertook that was financed by borrowing – the general public took no financial hit.

You've apparently never heard of Victory Bonds.

Reagan was conservative, but a Repectable one, and did not have a correct understanding of race. I can't blame him for that, since, after all, I didn't either back then.

The 1986 Amnesty for illegal Mexicans was by far the worst thing he did, and you did not even mention it.

But that did not really begin with him. The nail in the coffin was the 1965 immigration act, which some UnoWhooze consciously supported as a subversive act.

But still you must go back further.

Boaz and his bolshi comrades took over the American anthropology establishment, founding the "skin deep" myth.

As far as undermining the work ethic, welfare subsidies to the poor and fiat money do a fine job of that.

"For at the great metropolitan centers grew a luxurious, speculative stock-gambling body, which like a malignant tumor, absorbed into itself the strength of the nation and sent out its cancerous fibers to the remotest hamlets. At these city centers abundant wealth seemed to be piled up. In the country at large there grew a dislike of steady labor and a contempt for moderate gains and simple living."

-- Andrew Dickson White, founder of Cornell University, Fiat Money Inflation in France



So the decline goes back at least to the founding of The Federal Reserve.

The West, of which America is a part, has been in decline for a long time, technological advances notwithstanding.

Anonymous said...

The Victory Bonds referred to dont invalidate the case. They were 'valid' borrowings in that the peole had to take a hit to buy them. By contrast Vietnam was financed by the printing presses.

Croesus

Anonymous said...

Clinton turned the financial situation around in his 8 years, only for it to be turned to dust by Bush II. Maybe another Democratic Presedint will work the magic again.

SAVANT said...

"Globalisation, free trade and outsourcing of jobs to lower cost countries is good for everyone, US included. The US owns the capital and controls factories in lower cost countries."

Now thats a pretty sweeping statement. With globalisation, some gain, some lose. Strongly disagree that America is better off for it.

Anonymous said...

I would like to hear more about Ireland. what is happening in your country?

Anonymous said...

so what about Ireland?

Georgie Casey said...

'With globalisation, some gain, some lose.'

Well I don't agree, economics and world trade isn't a zero sum game, someone doesn't have to get poorer for someone else to be richer.

As Milton Friedman said, the US share of the pie might get smaller but the overall pie grows much bigger to compensate.

Anonymous said...

SAS Blog has been googled, who's next (sign of the times).

Reagan cremated manufacturing in the USA. I owned a manufacturing plant that employed thirteen people in 1980. Imports of products flowed into the USA from India. These products where being sold for the cost of what the raw materials would cost a US manufacturer. In 1985 I locked the empty facility that I had leased for fifteen blood letting years and my company was added to the thousands of US manufacturers that no longer employed,paid taxes and had made this country strong.

"georgie casey" sounds like some on the dole college professor who will never know what it is to be responsible for there wages.

Thank you Mr. Reagan

Cyd said...

Clinton turned the financial situation around in his 8 years, only for it to be turned to dust by Bush II. Maybe another Democratic Presedint will work the magic again.

Rightly so that the person who wrote this remained anonymous. Clinton had the great "luck" of being president during one of the most easiest money lending times in history. He along with that senile piece of work, Greenspan, created, out of consumer debt, this great prosperity. The internet bubble was the beginning and when that burst, the free money flowed into real estate and we know how that is ending.

People just became more indebted to buy useless shit in order to maintain the illusion. Bush came along when the well was running dry and his expenditure on his fucked up wars only hastened the demise. Obama does not have the luxury of the printing presses as did Clinton to turn the country around, especially since he wants to implement huge and expensive programs. Americans are fully in debt and they have had their retirements decimated by the financial crisis. They won't be buying much in the foreseeable future, that's for sure. Nor will they be too keen on having their taxes raised to pay for these programs. They are already on the hook for $700B to bail out the bankers and another $2 TRILLION being given out in secrecy to who knows whom! But I digress.

Though Obama will try to continue to print money as the alternative is a complete collapse of the US. He will print until the dollar is worthless. Then and only then will the North American version of the Euro be introduced to the US public, the Amero. This will usher in a North American Union to go along with the EU and eventually an Asian and African one. All leading to a One World Government. No, I'm not nuts and I wish I were.

The only unknown is how the US citizenry will respond to having their Constitution essentially shredded. From what I have heard, 2010 will be the time of this introduction. We'll see as we are living in absolutely historic times.

As for George Casey's tripe, yeah, we all need more cheap shit to buy in order to have a complete amalgamation of the globes human populations. No fucking thanks to your globalization catastrophe.

Albeus said...

Hi Savant
SASucks got nailed once again.
Our new address is:
http://zasux.blogspot.com/
Would really appreciate a little publicity

Anonymous said...

The Reagan administration was arguably the most corrupt in American history. Nobody seriously disputes this.

Anonymous said...

Jeb Bush got away with $3.5 million under the S&L scam. Paid $500k. for a $4 million property. Brother Neil looted 10 times as much.


Lynsmth

SAVANT said...

A few commentators are asking about Ireland.

My view is that we're in deep shit. Like our American cousins, we spent like drunken sailors in the good times. But worse, we embedded a collossal amount of cost in public sector employment, which you can't turn off. At least not in Ireland.

WE have a whole range of things going against us - high cost, inefficient and unreformable public sector, massive debt, huge over-investment in property, shaky banking system, students focusing on finance, marketing, law at the expense of science and engineering.

Serious shit.

kerdsasi amaq said...

In my book, Lincoln was the worst President that America ever had.

It was Lincoln who laid the foundations for the repressive state that Bush has completed, and Obongo will implement.

It will be very hard for Roosevelt, Bush or Obongo to top the evil that Lincoln did!

Skot German said...

"Globalisation, free trade and outsourcing of jobs to lower cost countries is good for everyone, US included."

Horseshit. It is not good for the US citizens, for whom the US government is supposed to benefit, who lose their jobs to cheaper overseas producers.

"The US owns the capital and controls factories in lower cost countries."

Only until those countries decide the US doesn't and nationalizes these assets.

"It's a fundamental shift from low margin manufacturing to high margin services, the United States proving once again that they can adapt to anything."

It is a fundamental way of bypassing wage, safety, environmental and labor laws that have been passed over the decades to protect American workers.

Anonymous said...

re globalisation, skot german has it spot on "It is a fundamental way of bypassing wage, safety, environmental and labor laws that have been passed over the decades to protect American workers."

The only thing Anerica got out of it was cheap unneeded goods from China.

Olaf.

Georgie Casey said...

'"georgie casey" sounds like some on the dole college professor who will never know what it is to be responsible for there wages.'

No, I'm an Internet marketer where you've to compete with everyone around the globe. The majority of people like me are Americans who make money because they work hard.

'As for George Casey's tripe, yeah, we all need more cheap shit to buy in order to have a complete amalgamation of the globes human populations. No fucking thanks to your globalization catastrophe.'

You can complain and bitterly oppose globalisation but you do realise there's nothing you or anyone else can do to stop it. It's inevitable. I personally think it's a good thing, you obviously don't.

And I agree 100% with Savants views on Ireland, we're in very bad shape. Times like these we desperately need the PDs. Pity

Cyd said...

You can complain and bitterly oppose globalisation but you do realise there's nothing you or anyone else can do to stop it. It's inevitable. I personally think it's a good thing, you obviously don't.

You do realize that only two things are "inevitable", right? Globalization is certainly not on that list as most people, meaning citizens, do not want it or its effects. So who wants it that it continues with an over 80% against polling amongst people? The elite and the bankers, that's who. An uprising with some elite bloodletting of a nation or two, and I do not mean England or the US for this to take effect, will cause a significant pause to this "inevitability". Those times are fast approaching. We will either stop this madness or succumb to it.

Anonymous said...

One thing that's often overlooked is that the backbone of America's economy - and social fabric - was the millions of small enterprises like those referred to by anonymous 0.50.

Reagan abandoned them with his free trade policies and favouring of the finance vultures.

Rhein said...

Nice post savant. Have you been reading takimag, especially Jack Hunter?


"With globalisation, some gain, some lose. Strongly disagree that America is better off for it."

The liberals and the immigrants have everything to gain from it while normal/conservative Whites are being dispossessed of everything they have. None of our countries are better off for it. It's not a coincidence that a lot of people from the US to England are now talking about 'economic nationalism'.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"One thing that's often overlooked is that the backbone of America's economy - and social fabric - was the millions of small enterprises like those referred to by anonymous 0.50.

Reagan abandoned them with his free trade policies and favouring of the finance vultures."

THANK YOU!, I did not have the physical or mental strenght to work as hard as I did to acomplish building that small business again. I realized that the "American Dream" was a crap shoot. Too many small business where successful and with the stroke of a pen they disappeared.

Rohan Swee said...

Nice post, Savant. I'd quibble about blaming students for not going into science and engineering, though. If Ireland is anything like the U.S., the "academic industrial complex" is doing its damndest to put native-born workers off technical careers of all kinds, abusing the visa system, driving down wages, depriving native-born graduates of intern and training opportunities in favor of foreign visa-holders, kicking experienced workers to the curb, sacking citizens en masse and replacing them with foreign "body shop" contractors, etc., etc., etc - all the while talking trash about how deeply concerned they are about "our kids not being able to compete in science and engineering". Just a thought.

Georgie Casey - LOL. Impressive how you managed to pack just about every mindless globaloney cliché into such a small space. Just FYI, the "US" does not own "the captial and control factories in lower cost countries", multinational corporations - some of which pretend to be American when it benefits them - do. And the United States has not made a "fundamental shift from low margin manufacturing to high margin services". The United States has been making a fundamental shift to a Third World economic structure (soon-to-be unserviceable debt and all!), and having shipped off its "low margin" manufacturing, is in an accelerating process of divesting itself of its high tech, high value-added manufacturing, and R&D. Nor is there any reason, under the current glorious "pie-growing", currency-manipulating, one-sided mercantilist global trade regime, why its "high margin services" can't follow the rest of our wealth and productive industries overseas. Oh wait, they already are. And btw, we're running monstrous and growing trade deficits with just about everybody, in just about everything, the middle-class has been circling the drain, and all the while the rape-and-pillage governing class is contriving dirt-eating debt-slavery for our grandchildren, and...

Oh fuck, why bother.

You can complain and bitterly oppose globalisation but you do realise there's nothing you or anyone else can do to stop it. It's inevitable.

What's inevitable, Georgie? I suppose it's not impossible, and perhaps even plausible, that the demoralized, passive populations of the First World will allow their nations to be ground down to Third World standards, via not-so-free trade, labor arbitrage, and uncontrolled migration. But then again, shit happens. Things change. A spanner has been thrown into these "inevitable" globalization works before in history, ya know. Let's check back in 5-10 years and see how "inevitable" is turning out.

Anonymous said...

Not alone did he lift the country, he brought down the Evil EMpire. Isn't that enouigh for one man?

Proud redneck

Anonymous said...

He teed up America for the Clinton years. He made America great and brought down the USSR.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 5.39 said "Not alone did he lift the country, he brought down the Evil EMpire."

Buddy, I was involved in the ill-fated 'reconstruction' of the former Soveit Union in the nineties, and I can tell you the evel empire collapsed all of its own accord. What Reagan did or did not do made damn-all different.

Ex-IMF

leadpb said...

You've an awesome blog here, IS. Especially enjoyed Cyd's comments in this weave.

They say Raygun was pre or non globalist, who knows. I think his esprit de corps counted for something and seems to still.

We need a statesman who is homely, awkward and dry witted. We need a sensible troll in one of our countries to do the job.

Anonymous said...

Too bad I didn't see this blog while all this was going on. As a defense contractor employee during our lords reign, I could see what a waste it was. I also knew he was little more than a pitchman for the ruling elite. I especially like the title they gave him as "patriot". However, would a patriot allow meat packing companies to send busses down to Mexico to get scabs - Ronnie did.

http://www.citypaper.com/special/story.asp?id=6045

ES: More difficult for me personally than seeing the slaughter of cattle and the incredible carnage in those factories was seeing these workers, how they live. Meat packing, until the late '70s, was one of the highest paying industrial jobs in the United States. Then the Reagan and Bush administrations allowed the industry to bust unions, to hire strikebreakers, to hire illegal immigrants for these jobs, even to transport them here from Mexico in company buses. Now meat packing is one of the lowest paying industrial jobs, as well as the most dangerous.

This is a great blog I will check in periodically.

Californian said...

Oddly enough, I agree with your assessment of Ronald Reagan and that is not an easy thing for me to say since I worked on his 1980 presidential campaign.

While Reagan talked the talk about liberty and smaller government, when it came to walking the walk he was a disaster: one of the main legacies of the Reagans (I include his wife) was the War on Drugs. This did more to expand the power of government, especially the federal government, than decades of liberal social democratic programs. The War on Drugs also did a nice hatchet job on the US Bill of Rights.

Then there was the refusal to take any serious steps against the first mass wave of illegal immigration, thereby setting up the current collapse of America’s current frontiers and also providing the precedent for the swamping of Europe by third worlders.

What Reagan's current fans do not want to face up to is that "political correctness" started to become entrenched as the national ideology during the Reagan years. Indeed, I first heard the term "PC" in 1989, in the first year of Bush Sr's, administration, and Bush Sr was Reagan's vice president.

I could go on, but I think we get the point. Reagan, like it or not, will be seen by future generations as America’s version of Rome’s Emperor Theodosius: someone who at the time might who might have deserved the laurels of Magnus ("The Great") but was really only setting us all up for the Fall.

SAVANT said...

Thank you anon 06.02. I know there are many millions of decent hard worjing Americans just like you who were blonded into handing over their economic independnece by these 'patriots'.

SAVANT said...

Californian - yes, I think that's precisley what Reagan's historical legacy will look like.

What I always wondered was the extent to which Reagan himslf knew he was just a patsy. How much of this bullshit did he beieve? I really dont know. he could have been anywhere on the spectrum between total cynic and true believer.

Anonymous said...

Californian - I agree wholeheartedly.

My biggest problem with Reagan was not his horrible record in how he walked, it was in how much he could have accomplished for conservatism but didn't.

The country was at a major crossroads. The policies of the 60's weren't working. Giving minorities a handout wasn't producing the intended results. The country was still 89% white and tired of the nonsense.

The Republican crowd likes to talk about the "Reagan Democrats" that Reagan got. They were blue collar factory workers tired of welfare queens, affirmative action, and being second class citizens as viewed by their own government.

Carter gave Reagan a great opportunity to stop immigration completely when he blundered with his stupid Mariel boatlift.

What happened - Those Reagan Democrats were kicked in the teeth. Affirmative action was not stopped or weakend. Union busting was job one. There might have been some crackdowns on welfare but the budget never went down on it.

Californian said...

Once Reagan got into office, there was always this sense that he was an observer, not an actor. For example, he would continually give speeches about the need to reduce government. But he could not take the most minimal steps, such as eliminating the (liberal) Department of Education--even though he had made campaign promises to do so.

The blue collar Reagan Democrats got nothing in return for their support. The corporate sector was allowed to run unchecked (including the beginnings of globalization), while illegal immigration took American jobs. The disintegration of the labor movement meant the last bastion of middle American (White) power was gone.

And here we are, a generation later, and America and the West are in a state of decline.

SAVANT said...

Californian - yes, I see Reagan as being an observer. He did all the things he said he woudln't do and didn't do too much of what he said he would.

And yes, the Reagan Democrats got preciesely nothing - which was the intention of the puppeteers all along.

Giuseppe Verdi said...

Savant,

To blame Reagan is a bit silly. The US was set on its path to destruction long before the 1980s. I prefer to look to the establishment of a native Marxism among Popular Front intellectuals, many of whom were involved in tax dollar funded New Deal programs in the 1930s, as a major turning point. These Marxists along with the later New Left (influenced by the Frankfurt School) in the 1960s have now taken over our education system and dictate the PC norms.

The huge government New Deal itself was also a turning point, as well as FDR's new electoral coalition, which deliberately appealed to black voters for support. This all was exacerbated in the 1960s with LBJ's Great Society, which pushed the US farther and farther down the path of accepting socialism as a norm of life.

As far as globalization is concerned, I see this in part as an outgrowth of the power that big business gained in the late 19th century in the US. Globalization is in businessmen's economic interests, so they logically pursue it. Greater opportunity for the already very powerful US business sector especially developed after WWII, when the US truly became a superpower and could institute globalization with greater ease. However, even in the late 19th and early 20th centuries the US military was already intervening in Latin American and Asian countries to promote and protect American investments there.

You seem to not only place the blame far too late and on the wrong person, but you seem to view Carter in a better light than Reagan. Carter was one of the most incompetent, priggish, wrong-headed leaders the US ever had. You praise him for his oil policy (or at least rhetoric about it), but Nixon was giving speeches about the need for US oil independence and laying out the steps to do this in the early 1970s. Carter said nothing new; he just said it more negatively and obnoxiously. The Carter years were also in general a time of economic hardship for the US.

One thing that I do know about the Reagan years is the experiences of my own family. Under Carter we lost out big time; under Reagan we were economically better off than we had ever been before or since. I know others for whom this was also the case. Although, yes, of course, some Americans lost out (small business owners as we have already seen, for example), many Americans remember the '80s as a time of prosperity and a time when the PC madness was not nearly as bad and traditional Euro-American values had greater public sway.

SAVANT said...

G Verdi. You make many good points but don't fully address my argument. This is that Reagan had an oportunity to fundmanentally redictect American policy in the right way after he took office. All the pahologies which now bedevil the country were taking hold and given the recognition that a crisis was at hand. tough measures would have been understood, if not liked, by the population at large.

But Reagan essentially said borrow ans spend like hell, there's no tomorrow. There is. and we're living it right now.

Quent said...

I think people liked Reagan because he didn't have a swelled head. Carter literally thought he was Jesus Christ. Does anybody remember the boatlift where he flooded the U.S. with the population of the Cuban prison system?

Reagan wasn't much of a president, but he was the best of a sorry lot. The last decent president the U.S. had was probably JFK. He was extremely prudent with the public's money, believe it or not.

JFK privately was scum, but he was a pretty good president. Reagan was a good, honest man, not full of himself, but not much of a president. So it goes.

Anonymous said...

The problem of the Reagan years is that so much about its misdeeds comes out years later. Even I, an ardent Reagan hater, did not know how the administration as lap dog for corporations, cooked up the phony studies that showed a need for high tech guest workers culminating in the 1990 immigration act which gave us H1-Bs.

This was really only desined to drive wages down like they had already done for blue collar workers by looking the other way on illegal immigration.

http://nber.nber.org/~peat/PapersFolder/Papers/SG/NSF.html

Californian said...

G Verdi. You make many good points but don't fully address my argument. This is that Reagan had an opportunity to fundamentally redictect American policy in the right way after he took office.

True. Reagan was president right at the time to make a difference: liberalism had been discredited by the Carter administration, busing, and the fallout from the 1960s; PC was not yet entrenched as a national ideology nor were illegal aliens a political power bloc; and there were still strong White working class consciousness.

Reagan himself was immensely popular and could have turned things around with just a little leadership. Alas, that leadership never came through, at least not for the policies he claimed he supported.

Oh well...

rebelliousvanilla said...

Georgie, why should we like America? The progressive nonsense, multiculturalism and political correctness were spread around in Europe by America, the US is the country that included her former slaves in her citizenship body and American exceptionalism...

Nevermind. As an European, I don't want to integrate outsiders. I want them out of my country. But don't worry, if we will ever do that, America will bomb us. And you wonder why a lot of us don't like America regardless of the position on the political spectrum.

The person that destroyed America was Lincoln. The 1960s after that were inevitable. I would necessarily blame Reagan for all of this. A lot of his policies made sense, a lot of them didn't, but he didn't really have an understanding of racial issues.

Oh, and Georgie, I'd like to point out to you that the pie getting bigger doesn't really help us that much. Also, the US will take a dramatic cut in standards of living due to deficits in terms of budgets and current accounts. Sure, if you consider a Chinese as important as an American, globalization makes sense. But if an American is slightly better off while a Chinese is worse off compared to an American staying the same and a Chinese being far better off, the former is more important, despite taken together the latter is better. In case you didn't figure it out, nations and people compete against each other. Having Mexicans do our lawns benefit both us and Mexicans, but in relative terms, they gain far more. And in competitions, relative positions matter.

Also, the US doesn't own the capital. In case you didn't figure it out, Americans borrow money from foreigners, including the corporations.

To the person owning a factory, the problem isn't really globalization as much as taxes and regulations. I'd like to know how much the US government cost you, including the costs incurred along the supply chain.

john said...

G Verdi is absolutely correct, with the exception of the fact that America really ended with lincoln and his masters' war of aggression. America ceased in 1865. And if one cannot accept that, certainly one can see 1913 [federal reserve] as it's end. Rebelliousvanilla makes a very good point, but I would ask her to consider liking America, as well as Americans. We are no different than you in that we are living in occupied territory right now governed by the same jewish financiers and one worlders as your country, wherever that may be. We do have one advantage though in that we still have our guns... I would point you to consider Rudyard Kipling's poem "The Awakening" [when the Saxon began to hate].