Exchanging Guns for Butter (and Gargantuan Debt)
In the matter of America's foreign policy going forward, what we wish to do, and what we are capable of doing are soon to become two different issues, given that we are adding $1 trillion-plus annually to an existing $16 trillion debt, and may have a rendezvouz with something like what Great Britain experienced in the late 1940s, when their vast WWII borrowing could not be sustained after 1945, given the country's decision to nationalize industry, socialize health care, and adopt a redistributive tax code and entitlement state, leaving America largely uncontested in rebuilding the world. That choice was made in a world in which there was not yet a South Korea or Taiwanese exporting giant, Germany and Japan were flattened, Russia and China were ruined, and much of Western Europe was in disarray due to bombing and occupation. That the world would soon buy Hondas and Mercedes rather than Minis and Jaguars was not foreordained in 1946; and in our own case, there was no rule that said in 2012 Detroit had to look like Hiroshima in 1945 while contemporary Hiroshima resembled what Detroit used to be.
Most of our interventions—Grenada, Panama, the Balkans, Libya, Iraq—were optional wars (Afghanistan was aimed at ending bases from which to repeat 9/11 like attacks), and thus any more like them may well be framed in terms of 'fight abroad or cut back on food stamps, Medicare, Obamacare, etc. at home.' Statesmen realign aims and responsibilities with exiting resources, and eventually cut back on the former if they cannot expand the latter while explaining to the public the dilemmas involved. This administration, however, has not talked about the effect of gargantuan debt upon military activism, and I think has conceded by our ongoing lead from behind strategy that while we are not going to lessen our borrowing, we at least accept that the defense budget will not be funded as in past years. Small annual deficits, 5% GDP growth, and 5% unemployment, if only politically, allow foreign policy options that chronic $1 trillion deficits, 2% GDP growth, 8% plus unemployment do not. U.S. foreign policy and military stature are rapidly under this president becoming a question of math. All this raises the gorge the beast question: did Obama see positive developments in vastly expanding government spending by $5 trillion in just 3 years (with another $6 trillion scheduled by 2016) that eventually will mean higher taxes on the wealthy and a more quietist U.S. abroad?
- Comment (14)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: Exchanging Guns for Butter (and Gargantuan Debt)
It seems worth noting that the only candidate to advocate significant additional investment in our defense (not counting the times Huntsman suggested it), was the candidate who won.
I do understand this to be a controversial opinion; I'm not saying this because I think it'll make him more popular. Experience suggests at least a couple of replies will suggest that I/ he don't/ doesn't understand that there's a fiscal crisis, or that all we do is make enemies abroad when we act morally. But I do think it's a useful data point for this conversation.
I'd also like to note that the protection of the shipping lanes, the kind of problem that thinkers like Michael Auslin have been warning us will become critical if the Navy shrinks at its current rate, risks relatively little in the form of blowback.
Aug '10
Re: Exchanging Guns for Butter (and Gargantuan Debt)
There is I believe a field of mathematics devoted to wrongly framed questions. It might be pertinent here. I don't think the issue is ever what Obama wants and will seek. I think the issue is always what Obama is bored by and will flee from.
Re: Exchanging Guns for Butter (and Gargantuan Debt)
If you go back to the 2008 campaign, you will see that Obama foresaw and welcomed a decline in America's capacity to project power abroad. Given that he and the left more generally see us as the chief source of wickedness in the world, this should come as no surprise.
Apart from Ron Paul, the Republican aspirants saw the problem.
Apr '11
Re: Exchanging Guns for Butter (and Gargantuan Debt)
Come on, guys! You are all great contributors to this site...don't rehash something we all know. Tell us something we can do about it!
Mar '11
Re: Exchanging Guns for Butter (and Gargantuan Debt)
Great post! This was the problem with the recent posts about a split in the Republican party foreign policy - they missed the problem of the US's gargantuan debt, which overrides everything else.
Only slight niggle - "That the world would soon buy Hondas and Mercedes rather than Minis and Jaguars was not foreordained in 1946."
Mini and Jaguar are doing pretty well, but they are not owned by the English anymore - therein lies the fundamental problem.
May '10
Re: Exchanging Guns for Butter (and Gargantuan Debt)
I'd suggest a shave with Occam's Razor. To impute to Obama, et al, the intent to devastate America's place and role in world affairs by building up deficits and a huge national debt seems to be unnecessarily multiplying entities. That is certainly a potential, if not actual, result. But it is not necessary to explain Obama's attitudes or actions. That he is a big government liberal is sufficient to account for his spending.
Correspondingly, if neutering America was his intent, then he failed to follow through on some of the easier foreign policy-related initiatives he promised in the campaign: closing Gitmo, visiting some of our more blatant foreign enemies, and so on.
I think the complete and utter incompetence that goes with the extreme liberal political stance is sufficient explanation.
What have I missed?
Jun '10
Re: Exchanging Guns for Butter (and Gargantuan Debt)
It's abundantly clear at this point that President Obama lacks basic knowledge in a variety of disciplines: geography (Maldives/Malvinas), culture (Arabic speakers needed in Afghanistan), history (of the Muslim world for starters), economics (the effect of supply and demand on the price of oil), and ordinary English vocabulary (corpse/corpsman). And that's just a short list. Given his lack of basic knowledge, it's pretty hard to assume that he understands more complex issues like geopolitics, diplomatic protocol, macro-economics, military strategy, or healthcare. He foresaw nothing when he announced his policies. He assumed each initiative would add yet another layer of grandeur to his carefully contrived persona. In truth he's a no-nothing and an ideologue. A deluded narcissist. The perfect product of a culture that combines high self-esteem with nothing in the way of genuine accomplishment. He reveals himself as a fool when he opens his mouth, and a bully when he doesn't get his way. God save the Republic!
Apr '12
Re: Exchanging Guns for Butter (and Gargantuan Debt)
Gargantuan debt and a welfare system that devours human souls rather than teaches how to perform supply chain management very, very well. Other skills too of course, and then there is all the technology developed too. If my clients get a US military contract, they can raise capital usually and grow their business. Also, roofing and construction companies in Canada have special immigration with Pokand to bring in workers and also the Canadian military. The ex soldiers make great workers. There are many hidden benefits that seem alien to some.
Aug '10
Re: Exchanging Guns for Butter (and Gargantuan Debt)
The next opportunity is a little more than 6 months away.
Feb '11
Re: Exchanging Guns for Butter (and Gargantuan Debt)
"Small annual deficits, 5% GDP growth, and 5% unemployment, if only politically, allow foreign policy options that chronic $1 trillion deficits, 2% GDP growth, 8% plus unemployment do not. U.S. foreign policy and military stature are rapidly under this president becoming a question of math. "
It's always been a question of math. Always. For this or any other President. The other vast difference between this debt and previous debt is we got stuff for previous debt and what exactly do we have for this debt? Building dams under Roosevelt; highways under Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon in no small part with debt; a defeat of the Soviet Union under Reagan; with Bush it was wasted money paying for idiotic wars; with Obama it's a lot more wasted money paying for current consumption.
Aug '10
Re: Exchanging Guns for Butter (and Gargantuan Debt)
Tom Lindholtz: I'd suggest a shave with Occam's Razor. To impute to Obama, et al, the intent to devastate America's place and role in world affairs by building up deficits and a huge national debt seems to be unnecessarily multiplying entities. ...
I think the complete and utter incompetence that goes with the extreme liberal political stance is sufficient explanation.
What have I missed? · 9 hours ago
Actually, he is fulfilling the Cloward-Piven Strategy which is not "multiplying entities" - but rather has the intent to "increased enrollment in social welfare programs in order to collapse that system and force reforms, leading to a guaranteed annual income."
Now, I don't know how you get from collapsing "social welfare programs" to "guaranteed annual income" it seems to me that there are a few fiddly bits in between those extremes, but that is the belief.
President Obama is doing pretty well on the first part with $1.5T deficits as far as the eye can see.
Edited on April 28, 2012 at 4:58pmDec '10
Re: Exchanging Guns for Butter (and Gargantuan Debt)
Put me in coach! Even though I was on the Cain Train, over the last couple of months, I've been slowly and grudgingly convinced that Romney is a good fit for our current crisis. So, from here on out, I'm all in for Romney and will work free - well, for coffee, he might not drink it but I need it.
The only campaign that I have ever worked for is Reagan's 1980 campaign and it was truly a world class experience. I worked as a pilot and that's basically the kind of help I can give to the Romney campaign. I am over 65, so, I'm not sure what the FAR and insurance issues would be, but, I have more than 20,000 hours and a pocket full of type ratings (most probably wouldn't be very useful). So, if there's a spot in the lineup, put me in ... I'll even pay to work (make contributions). If it's got wings, I can fly it.
Iran might pose an existential threat for Israel, but, Obama is a real-time existential threat to America.
Mar '12
Re: Exchanging Guns for Butter (and Gargantuan Debt)
Sovereign debt is just a symptom. The mission of the modern post-industrial state expanded to include a guarantee of ever increasing economic prosperity, even as post-industrial capitalism (and the end of the cold war which added marginally cheaper employees across the globe) renders redundant an increasing portion of the populations of these states.
The trillion dollar deficits are a function of bailing out the banks on the politically-created housing boom/bust and our inability to raise taxes on current domestic production to finance the level of government (such as welfare, farm subsidies, war costs, pensions) our political system has committed to be paid. The message of Greece is that the debt solution will end, and painfully. The message of California is that attempts to simply raise taxes on productive capital will simply accelerate the hollowing out of American employment: capital has never been so free to move where it is least taxed.
A robust idealistic foreign policy is perhaps more like the nineteenth century progressive social programs (social security, socialized healthcare and progressive income taxation) than conservatives thought: relics of the robust industrial nation states that cannot survive in a transnational post-industrial system.
Dec '10
Re: Exchanging Guns for Butter (and Gargantuan Debt)
It has always been a question of math when it comes to our abilities to remain a military hyperpower.
Obama's agenda has merely made the consequences of this math problem marginally more acute.