• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Grand Strategy for a Divided America

The Obama Administration has a different strategy than would a Republican.You need to remember that Obama is an Alinsky disciple,so its all about the crisis to blame Republicans in time for the 2014 elections.Of course it could backfire on the dem's big time.
 
Looking at examples like the rise of "small platoons" in Detroit and other examples of American citizens getting back to the actual job of citizenship, (see here. for example) I would suggest that the interrignum caused by a default would actually be shorter in the United States than anyplace else. America is uniquely blessed by an energetic and hardworking population (most of them, anyway), abundent natural resources and a flexible and dynamic culture.

A default would set off a global shockwave and topple the dominos of heavily indebted states, nations and institutions. Not even China would escape (and there are many who believe they are sitting on the biggest credit bubble in history, so they will fall much faster and harder than many other places).

The hard fact is even with many brigades, aircraft carriers and so on mothballed by a large scale global recession/depression, the Americans would still have a military force that is much larger and more effective than almost anyone else's, and still have the rather unique ability to project forces around the globe, while few potential adversaries can project forces far beyond their borders. The forces will be much smaller than previously, and won't be hanging around very long, but perhaps this is a good thing too; policy makers will have to be very focused on what they want to achieve with a smaller basket of resources. Think of the Falkland Islands war rather than the invasion of Iraq. Since the Americans can't fight everyone, and most fights will be confined far from American borders and not impact on core American interests, the best policy will be to stay put and let everyone fight it out among themselves, then decide who they want to deal with when the dust settles.

This may also be a "good" thing for the rest of the world as well. Most current institutions, borders etc. generally reflect the immediate post war world, while the same changes in demographics, economics and technology that are creating the real divides in America are at work everywhere else. While the process will be very messy and unpleasant for the people involved, collapsing dysfunctional regimes, unrepresentative borders and unresponsive institutions will create a period of lasting stability after the "reset" (lasting being about the same length of time as we see between WWII and the present).

 
There is plenty of money to pay interest on the debt.The government just wants to be able to spend more money.Go ahead just cancel Obamacare first.
 
In have discussed displacing the US dollar as the global reserve currency a couple of times in the past. The dollar's staus gives the US economy a HUGE advantage, something that annoys the Chinese and the Europeans.

This article (originally from The Telegraph) which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Financial Post explains that the issue ~ and its consequences ~ is on the table again:

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/10/15/us-dollar-supremacy-decline/
hotel-montreal-the-financial-post.png

The sun is setting on the U.S. dollar’s global supremacy

Jeremy Warner, The Telegraph

15/10/13

All great empires – from the Greek, to the Roman, the Spanish and the British – have at their heart a dominant means of exchange which is very much part of their political and social hegemony. Once upon a time, it was Roman coinage which was the world’s pre-eminent currency. In more recent times it was the British pound. Today, it’s the U.S. dollar to which international investors flock as a safe haven for their money. Highly liquid and apparently reliable – until recently at least – nothing else comes even remotely close to the greenback’s dominant position in the international monetary system.

That this position – what Giscard d’Estaing referred to as America’s “exorbitant privilege” – could so casually be put at risk by politicians on Capitol Hill is an extraordinary spectacle that may be indicative of a great power already seriously on the wane.

With the pound, the fall from grace was swift. Britain emerged from the devastation of the First World War an irreparably damaged economic and military power, with crushing debts and a deeply impaired manufacturing sector.

The dollar was able quickly to usurp the pound’s position. Final defeat for sterling came with Britain’s decision to leave the gold standard in 1931 – an economically sensible decision but a psychological turning point for sterling from which it never recovered.

Lack of any credible alternative means it won’t happen so quickly with the dollar. For all the progress of the last 30 years, China for now remains a much smaller economy than the U.S. and in any case is nowhere near ready financially to assume such a role. As for the euro, the dollar needn’t trouble itself much about this one-time pretender to the throne.

Yet rarely before has international dissatisfaction with the dollar’s role as reserve currency to the world been as great as it is now. The most visible anger comes from China, with more than US$3 trillion of dollar foreign exchange reserves, US$1.3 trillion of them held in U.S. Treasuries. For ordinary Chinese, it has come as a revelation to discover they own so much American debt. That they own it in a country which because of political brinkmanship may actually default has provoked understandable fury.

“It is perhaps a good time for the befuddled world to start considering building a de-Americanised world”, China’s official government news agency has said.

A steady erosion of trust which began with the financial crisis five years ago has reached apparent breaking point with the pantomime antics on Capitol Hill. The search for long-term alternatives to the dollar is on as never before. Regrettably, there aren’t any, or not for the time being in any case. Everyone can only look on in horror as the US commits apparent economic suicide.

Such is the dollar’s dominance that, to begin with at least, investors might simply have to take default on the chin. More than 60% of global foreign exchange reserves are held in U.S. dollars, which also account for more than 80% of global foreign exchange trading.

So important is dollar liquidity in global trade that if, for instance, you wanted to sell Singapore dollars and buy South African rand, your forex dealer would first typically buy U.S. dollars with your Singapore dollars and then use them to buy the South African rand. The dollar is the middle currency in the vast bulk of international transactions.

By the same token, U.S. Treasuries are the very backbone of the global financial system. They are the supposed “risk-free asset” against which everything else is benchmarked, and as such are the collateral of choice in a huge array of financial market transactions. The dollar is also the currency used to price most commodities, from oil to gold.

The dollar’s hegemony is all pervasive. This has given the greenback a degree of leverage unmatched by any other reserve currency in history. If China starts to sell dollar assets, it will only weaken the dollar, undermining Chinese exports and reducing the value of its remaining portfolio of dollar assets.

I’d been part of the received wisdom that any act of U.S. default would set off a devastating chain reaction of bankruptcies that would provoke a second global financial crisis. But David Bloom, chief currency strategist at HSBC, has convinced me that dollar hegemony might perversely act in the opposite way, at least initially.

Unlike a generalised credit event, where all instruments default at the same time, the U.S. would initially engage in a series of little, self contained defaults, or “selective defaults”, whose individual impact would probably not be that great.

Each bond has a life and coupon of its own. The missed coupon payment might therefore be regarded as not so bad – especially as this is a case of “won’t pay”, rather than “can’t pay”.

Markets see such defaults differently, with missed payments expected to be made up eventually once a political resolution is found. It’s also very likely that the Federal Reserve would attempt to counter the damage in financial markets with more QE, buying up the Treasuries that investors dumped.

Furthermore, the financial uncertainty created by default would likely drive investors towards past safe havens of choice – in particular, US dollar assets. Alternative safe havens, such as Japan and Switzerland, have been rendered defunct by central bank money printing. Ironically, emerging markets are likely be more damaged by default than the US itself, with further capital flight.

Such is the degree of “exorbitant privilege” enjoyed by the dollar that it might therefore be the first currency in history to see an asset price rally on the back of a default. However, if there were repeated selective defaults, a second, less benign phase would eventually set in. Spooked markets would begin to sell off the dollar.

The consequent stronger euro and pound would have powerfully deflationary consequences for Europe. Internal demand in the US would also collapse as a result of the wrenching fiscal squeeze that would result from federal government attempts to match expenditures with tax revenues.

Dollar hegemony has long been a destabilising force at the centre of the international monetary system; it’s a major part of the sharp build-up in global current account imbalances and cross border capital flows that have been at the heart of so many of the problems in the world economy. The unprecedented accumulation of dollar foreign exchange reserves has in turn caused new challenges for the US, making it more difficult to maintain fiscal and financial stability within its own borders.

Policies that may or may not be good for the U.S. are in all probability bad for everyone else. Loose monetary policy in the U.S. since the crisis began has induced unwanted demand and asset bubbles elsewhere in the world.

Serious alternatives to the dollar, such as a global reserve currency, are still a long way off, but the latest shenanigans on Capitol Hill have given the search for them renewed and added momentum.

The U.S. is wrecklessly throwing away its future.


The only sensible alternative to the US dollar as a global reserve currency is an official, managed "basket" of currencies, like the International Monetary Fund's Special Drawing Rights which is, however, already heavily (60%+) weighted with US dollars.

0309-fig1.gif


But it would be possible to rebalance the SDRs to add Chinese Yuan (¥) (for say 5 to 10%) and to increase the amount of the Japanese ¥ to 5% and promote e.g. Australian and Canadian dollars in the "basket" to something like 1.5% each ~ all at the expense of the US dollar which, at the end of the process would be "worth" only 49.9% of the SDR.
 
Digital crypto currencies may come out of left field and disrupt these neatly laid plans. Crypto currency lies outside of government regulation, and is thus much harder to debase or otherwise manipulate for political gain. Bankers hate it since it eliminates their role as middleman for financial transactions, while users apprieciate the ease of use when conducting transactions between parties who have adopted this form of currency. (Non Bitcoin users can see some of these effects by comparing PayPal to transfers using bank instruments or Western Union, for example).

While Bitcoin may be forced out of business, we should think back to "Napster" to see how the market reacts when a new product or service is created that empowers a large population of new users:

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/520296/leading-economist-predicts-a-bitcoin-backlash/

Leading Economist Predicts a Bitcoin Backlash
Economist Simon Johnson says governments will feel the urge to suppress the crypto-currency Bitcoin.

By Will Knight on October 14, 2013
WHY IT MATTERS

A distributed, digital currency could allow new forms of online and mobile commerce—and perhaps challenge established financial systems.

Governments and established financial institutions are likely to launch a campaign to quash the decentralized digital currency Bitcoin, according to a leading economist and academic. Simon Johnson, a professor of entrepreneurship at MIT’s Sloan School of Management, expects Bitcoin to face political pressure and aggressive lobbying from big banks because of its disruptive nature.

“There is going to be a big political backlash,” Johnson said on stage at MIT Technology Review’s EmTech conference in Cambridge, Massachusetts, last Thursday. “And the question is whether the people behind those currencies are ready for that and have their own political strategy.”

The system of cryptographic software behind Bitcoin represents a significant technical advance, and the currency has inspired many cyber-libertarians (see “What Bitcoin Is and Why It Matters”). Mathematical and computer networking principles are used to underpin a system through which financial transactions can be made digitally, without the need for any central authority or financial institution.

The code that supports and regulates the Bitcoin network is built into the software needed to use the currency. It works in a distributed network across the Internet to confirm transactions and prevent counterfeiting. Adding to the mystique, the technical expert or experts who developed the Bitcoin protocol are still unknown.

After several years as a nerdy curiosity, the currency has recently gained momentum as a legitimate means of payment. Many Bitcoin-based businesses are springing up, some backed by major Silicon Valley venture capitalists (see “Bitcoin Hits the Big Time, to the Regret of Some Early Boosters”).

However, Johnson says that Bitcoin’s success will draw increased attention from governments and regulators, who are used to having tight control over currencies. He believes they will be egged on by established financial institutions, which will likely seek to quash the currency. Bitcoin enables very rapid, cheap transfers and payments that could compete with existing fee-based ways of moving money around. “Any bankers watching this should be very afraid,” said Johnson.

Bitcoin opponents could get ammunition for their campaign from the recent case of Silk Road, an online marketplace where bitcoins were traded for illicit drugs. The FBI arrested a man on suspicion of running the site and seized the servers that ran Silk Road. The site was hidden from the open Internet using the anonymous networking technology Tor. (Interpolation: while they have indeed seized the assets of Silk Road, they do not have the cryptographic keys, so the value of the Bitcoins is unavailable to the US government which seized these assets).

Johnson suggested that this kind of controversial association could certainly put pressure on Bitcoin. “People care a lot about how monies are used,” he said. “They care about the various behaviors associated with monies.”

Indeed, it appears that Bitcoin is coming under increased scrutiny from lawmakers and politicians. Stephen Pair, cofounder and CTO of the Bitcoin payments company Bitpay, says his company has been contacted by state and national officials who have subpoenaed information about its activities.

Pair rejects any suggestion that the currency has any special association with illegal activities. “Just because you use Bitcoin and Tor doesn’t mean you can get away with breaking the law,” he says. “I would not advise people to see Bitcoin as a means of subverting the legal system.”

Johnson, who served as chief economist for the International Monetary Fund in 2007 and 2008, said he thinks supporters of the “crypto-currency” could head off opponents by persuading politicians and legislators that it represents an opportunity for international innovation. “They shouldn’t sit back and wait for other people to define them in terms of Silk Road or anything else,” he said in an interview after the conference. “They should be proactive and explain why this would be a great industry for the U.S. to develop, and why they should have appropriate regulation around that.”

He also said that some governments outside the U.S. may feel threatened by Bitcoin because it allows citizens and companies to sidestep restrictions on the movement of funds across their borders.
 
>Adding to the mystique, the technical expert or experts who developed the Bitcoin protocol are still unknown.

My.  It will be quite entertaining if the "unknown experts" built in some interesting back doors, and even more entertaining if the unknown experts turn out to be an underadvertised agency of someone's government.

More transparency is in order before I go anywhere near that.
 
Absolutely true, Brad. The larger point is that Digital currency is now here and will be proliferating. Looking back, I recall that various on line games have "convertable currency"; players can exchange "gold coins" from the game for real cash; selling gold and game items to other players, a very early example of a virtual economy interacting with a real one.

This will upend much conventional wisdom about "reserve currency", destroy various networks established to collect rents from the flow and exchange of money and potentially put the brakes on much of the activities of the Central Banks (especially the Federal Reserve). The implications are hard to judge, there is little precedent in the modern era, but perhaps this might be similar to the "free banking era", when individual banks could and did issue their own currency, and their solvency was based on the individual portfolios and holdings of the bank, with no form of insurance.
 
In a way the IMF's SDRs are just such a "digital currency." No such unit of currency exists, in fact SDRs were created to cope with a crisis in the supply of both gold and US dollars in the late 1960s. They became both more and less relevant in 1971 when Richard Nixon upset the global financial apple cart.

It may be that the SDR's time has come to be the main global reserve/exchange medium.
 
While SDR's may indeed serve that purpose for a short while, digital currency empowers individuals, not States. Individual transactions and corporate transactions are easily and inexpensively facilitated by digital media (think of PayPal for the early example), and few will want to add extra steps, time and expense to their dealings.

Undermining USD, Euros, Yen, Yuan and SDR's will have some pretty incalculable results on the world economy. The low cost and high conveinience of digital currency will almost garuntee high levels of adoption (much like downloadable entertainment media was rapidly adopted despite the efforts of the entertainment industry). Perhaps the best thing for the Americans to do is figure out how to deal with the transition in ways that do not drive out savings and investment (i.e. not erecting regulatory or predatory barriers against digital currency).
 
Well, the nonsense has been kicked down the road for another couple of months.

:pop:

Default Averted: House Sends Obama Deal to Reopen Government, Raise Debt Ceiling

http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/house-sends-obama-deal-to-re-open-goverment-raise-debt-ceiling/

After a bitter 16-day government shutdown and just hours before the Treasury Department’s debt ceiling deadline, the House passed the Senate’s bipartisan deal to reopen the government and extend the nation’s borrowing limit, sending the measure to the president.

The chamber voted 285-144 late Wednesday night on the Senate-negotiated fiscal package, with 198 Democrats voting “yes” and 144 Republicans voting “no.”

Earlier in the evening, the Senate voted 81-18 to pass the bill, and President Barack Obama made a statement shortly after the Senate vote to say he would immediately sign the bill.

“We’ll begin reopening our government immediately, and we can begin to lift this cloud of uncertainty and unease from our businesses and from the American people,” Obama said.

The proposal would fund the government through Jan. 15, 2014, and put off the debt ceiling until Feb. 7, 2014, with the Treasury Department maintaining its ability to use so-called extraordinary measures to extend the deadline.

The deal, which was brokered in the Senate after the House was unable to find enough votes for its own plan, would provide back pay for federal workers, including pay for approximately 800,000 workers who were deemed nonessential and furloughed during the shutdown. States that used their own funds to carry on government operations would also be paid back by the federal government.

Apparently the dysfunction within the House has taken it's toll on the House Stenographer.

House Stenographer Opines About Free Masons

http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/house-stenographer-opines-about-free-masons/

House passage of a government funding and debt limit deal got bizarre Wednesday night when a House stenographer went rogue.

The stenographer apparently began shouting about God, the free masons and a House divided, just as federal workers’ pay was being restored.

“He will not be mocked. He will not be mocked. Don’t touch me. He will not be mocked. The greatest deception here is this is not ‘one nation under God.’ It never was. Had it been, it would not have been … no … it would not have been,” the stenographer yelled as Capitol Police dragged her from the House floor.

“The Constitution would not have been written by free masons. They go against God,” she said. ”You cannot serve two masters. You cannot serve two masters. Praise be to God. Lord Jesus Christ.”

Lawmakers watched the scene in a mix of bewilderment and shock. Members stood on the floor watching the scene unfold, and after the floor staffer was removed from the chamber, lawmakers turned to each other to try figure out what it was all about.
 
Although I'm not usually much of a Republican supporter, I salute Mr. Boehner. He has a very difficult task, balancing between the higher responsibility to the nation he serves and the bloody-minded impulses of some people in his party. I honestly believe him when he says he "fought the good fight": it is hard to fault a person who acts from genuine conscience.

Maybe this episode will bring about a return to some kind of bipartisan pragmatism, so that the internal fires can be put out (or knocked down) before the USS America sinks.

Or not...
 
pbi said:
Although I'm not usually much of a Republican supporter, I salute Mr. Boehner. He has a very difficult task, balancing between the higher responsibility to the nation he serves and the bloody-minded impulses of some people in his party. I honestly believe him when he says he "fought the good fight": it is hard to fault a person who acts from genuine conscience.

Maybe this episode will bring about a return to some kind of bipartisan pragmatism, so that the internal fires can be put out (or knocked down) before the USS America sinks.

Or not...

I have to question some of his motivation.

There has been discussion on both sides as to whether he was putting potential loss of his position as speaker above the national interest by giving in to demands of the far right to follow a path that had no chance of success.

The House GOP Leadership was essentially made irrelevant since the complete implosion last weekend.

And all that was really achieved was kicking the issue down the road 3 months. Come the first two weeks of January, we could well see this whole thing play itself out again if the GOP hasn't taken this as a teaching moment.

Which brings me around to my though on how the US could become ascendant again.

What has been the biggest problem with the US since 2001 is the uncertainty that has existed across both the economy and the body politic. It has been most prominent in the period after the 2010 mid-term elections.

Governing from crisis to crisis exacerbated the slow economic growth. Business didn't want to make long term plans when they had no idea what the political sector was going to throw out. Markets became jittery with every congressional impasse. Ineffective leadership on both sides were unable to get any significant resolution to the big problems of immigration, poor economic performance, lack-luster jobs recovery.

The Politicos need to move beyond the petty points scoring, and look beyond their own agendas and do what needs to be done for the country to advance and restore itself to it's former position on the world stage. Regardless of what they feel is best for getting themselves reelected. They have to reach down deep into their pants, grab their sacs and give a good hard squeeze and make the difficult decisions irrespective of it's outcome on future reelection.
 
A new poll out appears to show that America is not as divided as you might think.

The basic take away is that 55% of Americans are moderates, with the Left / Right split at 20% and 25% respectively.

But looking at the data from the poll, you could also say that Americans are all over the map, and trying to pin any individual in that middle spectrum would be harder than nailing Jell-o to the wall.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/14/20960588-the-new-american-center-why-our-nation-isnt-as-divided-as-we-think

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/new-american-center-1113
 
The divide is that one party wishes to spend as much as the mandatory programs demand and 4% "baseline" annual growth for discretionary spending, and the other party wishes to balance the budget without raising taxes.  What does each party have to offer that the other wants?  What "grand strategy" beckons?
 
cupper said:
...The Politicos need to move beyond the petty points scoring, and look beyond their own agendas and do what needs to be done for the country to advance and restore itself to it's former position on the world stage. Regardless of what they feel is best for getting themselves reelected. They have to reach down deep into their pants, grab their sacs and give a good hard squeeze and make the difficult decisions irrespective of it's outcome on future reelection....

Oh...you mean act like "statesmen" instead of street-paving, pork-barrelling, vote-chasing, donation-scrounging, special interest-cultivating "politicians"?

Silly person! :facepalm:
 
pbi said:
Oh...you mean act like "statesmen" instead of street-paving, pork-barrelling, vote-chasing, donation-scrounging, special interest-cultivating "politicians"?

Silly person! :facepalm:

It's good to have dreams.  ;D
 
But, seriously....

I wonder what actual impact all of this has had on the internal workings of the Republican party? Even if we dismiss 50% of the reports of GOP infighting as just the media gloating, it still looks like there might not be much love lost between the Tea Party crowd and the "mainstream" Republicans.

Third party, anyone?
 
America's history with third parties is not encouraging.

I agree that there is a civil war raging withing the Republican party. It was, back in Eisenhower's day, for example, the party of small town "middle America:" Main Street, not Wall Street. It was socially liberal ~ far more so than the Democrats which, back then, were strong in the South and which was, in the 1950s, fighting its own civil war between the Norther Eastern liberals and the Dixiecrats from the "Old South."

There was, beginning in the 1950s, another of those great migrations ~ this time by whites from the industrial North to the "New South," places like Atlanta and Dallas. The Southern states turned to the GOP and the North became solidly Democrat.

I'm not sure how the GOP's current civil war will play out. If the Tea Party wins then I expect an exodus to the Democrats which will temper that party, dragging it back to the moderate middle. That exodus will also guarantee the moderated Democrats control of the White House and the Congress for a generation. If the mainstream Republicans win then I expect one or maybe even two election cycles in which several independent candidates score temporary victories before rejoining the GOP.
 
Well, first indicators will come in two weeks with the Virginia off off-year elections.

The Dems are running a Washington insider with deep ties to the Clintons in Terry McAuliffe.

The GOP is running Ken Cuccinelli, a far right cultural conservative who has used his position of Attorney General to further his own personal agenda.

And we have a conservative libertarian as a third party candidate.

McAuliffe should not be leading in the polls in this campaign. He has been touted as the worst possible candidate the Dems could run in Virginia.

Cuccinelli was not supposed to be the choice for the Governor's race. However the conservative right wing of the Virginia GOP along with Tea Party managed to switch the selection from a primary process to a convention stacked with far right conservative members, and chose a slate of candidates that make most of the GOP's 2012 Presidential slate middle of the road.

Cuccinelli has never lead in any poll since being chosen. Now some of that could be accounted for by the presence of the Libertarian, but Cuccinelli had problems garnering support even before the Libertarian entered the race.

It is very telling that in the final weeks of tis race, Cuccinelli is spending more time campaigning to and trying to keep his base than trying to appeal to the independents and moderates.
 
Back
Top