The Economist usually can be counted on to say what Tony Blankley wishes he could say. That is, if he had more time. And actually came up with the stuff. Erudition rarely erupts accidentally. But that aside, the comparison holds. Sometimes.
The point is that once more, they offer cheerful Athenian wisdom to their puckish Roman cousins. This time it’s on the dollar’s catastrophic collapse. The first part is actually a pithy, grim and concise summary of the events leading up to the crime scene. Then, the Economist veers into prime Tony territory by optimistically asserting that things in fact are not all that bad if:
[S]elf lf-interest and sensible policy can cut the odds of trouble. The first step is for American policymakers to pay more heed to their currency. For all their talk about a strong dollar, American officials have behaved as if they cared little about its worth. A reserve currency is supposed to be a store of value; by running a huge current-account deficit America has left the dollar vulnerable. At such a tricky time, benign neglect will no longer do. For the moment, this need mean little more than some carefully chosen words. If the slide becomes chaotic, it could demand currency-market intervention and a willingness to hold back interest-rate cuts for the sake of the dollar.
The other part of the solution lies elsewhere, particularly with those countries with dollar-pegging currencies. These economies need to allow their currencies to rise, both to curb inflation and encourage the rebalancing of the global economy. Appreciation would mean that these countries accumulated new dollar reserves at a slower pace. That in turn would lead to a loss of the dollar’s pre-eminence and the emergence of other reserve currencies: there is no rule to say you can have only one reserve currency. But this need not—and in today’s febrile environment must not—mean dumping existing dollar reserves. That would impose a far higher cost on everyone, including the dumpers.
The history of international co-operation on currencies is patchy. But China and the oil-rich Gulf states have ample reason to play their part in an orderly decline of the dollar’s dominance. Despite the opprobrium heaped on them, the Chinese do not want to see the Fed’s hands tied by a dollar crisis; nor do they want to see the euro zone, one of their best markets, slow sharply; and they have little interest in the external value of their existing dollar reserves plunging. Beyond all that, China’s leaders want to be taken seriously as responsible actors in the international system. Now is their chance.
Now, we are quite confident that the Economist’s upper management enforce a drug free workplace banning narcotics, hallucinogens and even crippling alcoholism. (Recall Conrad Black’s unkind observation that many if not most journalists he knows (on both sides of the Atlantic) battle the bottle now and then). We jest, Dear solicitors. Yet no responsible adult with even a casual understanding of recent history — and particularly recent American financial history — could type those words with composure. Those paragraphs are, to refer to recent comments here discussing America’s Most Important Columnist, beyond Friedman-esque. None of the proposed American actions will survive an election year race to the bottom. Two words: Walter Mondale. Nor does Beijing show or have any incentive to bail America out of a disaster of her own making. Quite the opposite, in fact. They have their own distractions and strategic timetables.
So what gives? One wonders in the end if there isn’t some quiet desperation going on. After all, what’s the point in being head cheerleader if your team’s willfully committing seppuku? There’s no “I” in dollar . . .
Anon says
50K to get 26.6 million? There must have been a track record to suggest this cheap number was enough:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004798.php
Anon says
Rudy lucks out – This “worst week ever” tag is just hollow baloney. TPM forgets the Dean scream bs and Tweety lying about Gore for two years. Besides Rudy is lucky they called his protection fund diversion “Shag Fund” – That has a playful ring to it – humanizing. Almost hip. Far better than “Homewrecker S***pile” or just about any other thing
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060017.php
Comment says
Here Webb slowly dissolves into an old Woody Allen template:
“Meier even suggests that Strauss may have
been sympathetic with Heidegger’s substitution of death for God (as the horizon of an atheistic philosophy), although this goes against the grain of Strauss’s most trenchant criticisms of Heidegger. Strauss always thought that Heidegger confused philosophy with theology by framing philosophy with an existential rhetoric that barely conceals its genealogy in secularize Protestant theology. If Meier is right, however, then Strauss’s own attempt to return to the Greeks is hardly free of theological baggage. Indeed, Strauss’s decisionism (just like Schmitt’s) carries
with it something of a theological voluntarism, just as his esotericism reflects something of Gnosticism.”
———
(Scene : Woody Allen and Diane Keaton are perusing the stacks of books in the old Colloseum Death and Dying section.)
Diane K: Woody – You’re obssed with death. It’s so …
Woody A: My analyst says Death is my subsitute for God – I’d say opium for atheists, but I’m allegic to morphine ..
Diane: He stole that from Heidigger. Didn’t you know
Woody A: Stole what?
Diane K: Death is a substiture for God – You’re too obsessed with death, just as my ex was too into God ..
Woody A: Ah yes – Martin Heidegger, I think he played for the NY Giants.
Diane K: Heidegger was a Nazi!
Woody Allen: I never was a Giant fan.
Comment says
Wayne Allard is soft on E-Coli. He tries to draw distinctions between good E-coli and bad E-Coli – Just like those damm liberals who distinguigs between Hezbollah and Hamas.
Comment says
Here is where Webb reveals himself as a bit too self-important for an ordinary Wabash sage:
“Philosophy must be firm in taking on the task of influencing the society in which the philosopher lives. Consequently, philosophy’s rational self-justification will necessarily be a political act. Here is where, perhaps, Strauss was most influenced by Carl Schmitt …”
Philosophy must be firm! But he was too weak to attribute “influencing the society” to Marx. Perhaps the townies wouldn’t cotten to that.
A Random Quote says
“The American people need to understand there’s differences between E.Coli … there’s E. Coli that’s good in your bowel and there’s…”
~Senator Wayne Allard [R-Co.]
Comment says
After Gee Dubs finished his news conf. on a strong note – the camera panned the room and fixed on a very lonely and unhappy Helen Thomas. When Coulter calls Helen “an old Arab” in front of right wing crowds, she gets malicuous clapping and laughter in return. This kind of racism is now endemic in the GOP. Call it replacement racism for a post Condi VRWC.
Comment says
What did that have to do with Strauss? Well not much, except for the hidden dialogue between the democracy loving Texan (Strauss) V. the friends/enemies desert King (Schmitt) Abdullah. Both Bush and the King wipe away the post Kantian press poodles.
Comment says
re Strauss, Revelation, & Bush – Bush was just asked about that Saudi rape case when the Saudi Court (surprise surprise) blamed the victim and had her lashed.
Now on one level, we sympathize with Bush – It is absurd to ask the President to comment on “legal” and “criminal” cases in countries other than our own.
But on the other hand, he should shove it up his Middle Kingdom – Bush and his crew play games with these issues all the time . Iran is a paradise of reason and democracy compared to that atrocious “Kingdom” with it’s disgusting relationship with the Bush family.
So Bush tries to change the subject and does a classic re-positioning bridging trick by waxing emotionally about his daughter and how would not want his daughter to be raped by Saudi criminals (he did not spell it out) and then be punished for it. A non sequitor that fooled the Press Corp with its phony emotion and empathy.
But is Bush gonna complain to the King? No.
Comment says
There is a hidden dialogue between Chris Matthews and Bill O’Reilly. We’ve been trying to decode it all these years – To no avail! But it something to do with Hillary.
Btw, Bush just had a Freudian slip = “We have not a good President in Iran, since 1979.” !!!!
HRC should now pounce = She should move to Bush’s right on Iran, in some respects – By pointing out Bush (albeit insincere) reliance on IAEA and his politicized intelligence. She should demand declassification of certain sections of the NIE (knowing Bush won’t) that will show that Bush’s Iraq war led to strengthing Iran.
Also – She should remind the world that Cheney and Rumsfeld did more than anyone to help Iran get nukes, by pushing for it under Ford – Cheney defends this saying no one knew the Shah would fall. But ‘Eff Him – A lot of people predicted the Shah could fall. Hillary should drill this point home, over and over and expose the unpopular Cheney – Though we support Obama, he would not be able to jumpstart this meme.
Comment says
re Kinetic freedom – A while ago we heard a professor speak in defense of Strauss to a liberal audience. He kept insisting that Strauss would have opposed the Iraq war, as did the Professor himself. But he allowed that Strauss would have supported Afganistan. Obviously this defense of Strauss was somewhat articial and prophylactic, but it struck us another example of objective mysticism at work – Because the professor, on a certain level, felt comfortable bashing down a historicist wall and engaging in dialogue with Strauss, even though he subjectly (good Kantian that he is) knew that was objectively impossible.
Comment says
LOL – For the record, Comment was joking when we asked “what the heck is a rhetorical strategy?” – The “what the heck” formulation/question originated with Boot a while back in his “what the heck is a neo …” op-ed. Since then, we noticed that oddly informal formulation crops up in all sorts of places in varying degrees of irony and knowingness. So we thought it was funny that he drew attention to the rhetorical strategy of religion and even qualified it by noting “apparent sympathy” to obtain useful allies – “To his *credit*” Meier is not explicit – but arguements lurk …
—-
And that brings us to “corral[ing theology”
“At the sketchy end of the “Reason and Revelation”
lecture notes, Strauss raises the connection between the moral law and the “absolute superiority of the ancestors” (166), which seems to present a projection
theory of religion, but how far he went in this Feuerbachian direction in order to account for the origins of faith is lost in the halls of Hartford Seminary. I cannot
imagine that Strauss would have seriously considered Feuerbach the key to understanding faith, which might be why these lectures were never polished into
a publishable form. Correlated to Strauss’s challenge to philosophers is a provocation to theologians.
Theologians should not try to pretend that they are philosophers … theologians should answer to their founding myth, rather than pursue a life
of questioning, since questioning, Strauss thinks, will dissolve their confidence in their myth. Strauss in effect argues that philosophers know what theologians
should do better than theologians themselves, because philosophers know that myth is impossible to reconcile with reason. But he can corral theology only if he
can demonstrate that revelation is not the source and goal of all questioning, in which case theology is the answer to the inherent limitations of philosophy.
———————-
Strauss’s true strength was creating a system with acolytes who would always operate , in the real world, in a manner that could plausibly be described as departing from Strauss – He was a bit like KM in this sense. Indeed, he was a bit like JC in this respect too.
Dr.LeoStrauss says
re hermeneutical leverages of esotericism
All bets are off to “outsiders” of the in group schooled in the proper textual canonical interpretation. It’s one reason that Strauss’ students and first generational personal acolytes always referred to Strauss’ “teachings” — a precise and important choice. Abe Shulsky, another Straussian who was deeply involved with Feith and the Office of Special Plans activities, used to run a series of esoteric deconstructions of Thucydides to turn it inside out. Webb, the author of the review link, concedes that a philosophy can become a church. In this case, the “teachings” became more of operational cell with extreme security and infiltration prevention mechanisms.
Should those invested in a particular “teaching” succeed in either publishing/speaking enough to have their gloss become the default understanding, then indeed all bets are off. One reason Kristol’s mother, Himmelfarb, sought 3 years ago to re-interpret the entire Enlightment as anti-French and essentially based on Neocon principles, especially martial ‘liberation’ strategies. Useful idiots and voice amplifiers are particularly helpful here as they are unlikely to read primary texts or even care. They want the fame from advancing the meme.
re rhetorics, here Webb perhaps clumsily may be alluding to one of the basic principles of the Straussian concept, which is that the ancient philosophers such as Plato for political reasons could not speak the truth without a death sentence so deployed all the artifices of indirection and esoteric intent hidden by key signifiers catchable only by the famous “close read”. In Strauss’ case the problem became what to do with someone who washed ashore in the United States in the 1930s surrounded by mass culture and dreaded ‘leveling’, etc. Hard to argue directly against liberal democracy without similarly going “submerged” for survival. Today, with Up being Down, the Gilded Age mass-re-allocation of privilege, Congress and Judiciary subservient to the Leader, Freedom equalling “kinetic” applications — one can imagine our name sake opining more directly — although still finding the Weekly Standard, Kristol Jr. and VDH too down market.
Comment says
From the Strauss article linked above:
“If Strauss sometimes seems to be paying religion a
complement by taking it so seriously, Meier observes, it is because he was all too aware of the danger posed by the philosophical act to any set of beliefs grounded
in an ultimately unquestionable source of authority. Strauss not only wrote about esotericism, he lived it, in the sense of being very guarded in the way he formulated
the debate between reason and revelation.
Much of Meier’s analysis of Strauss rings true, even if he portrays Strauss as more combative toward religion than he actually was. But of course, once the hermeneutical leverage of esotericism is employed, Meier can argue that any apparent sympathy for religion was merely a rhetorical strategy made necessary by Strauss’s political situation. To his credit, Meier does not make that argument
explicit, though it lurks just beneath the surface of his text. (By making Meier’s esoteric argument explicit, of course, I can be accused of developing a Straussian
interpretation of Meier.)”
—–
Leo,
Once you start employing the hermeneutical leverage of esotercism, then all bets are off. But what the heck is a “rhetorical strategy” ???
Comment says
In order to understand the pornographic NIE of 2002, it’s important to remember that it was assembled to support argument for war long after the decision was made to go to war. So it just had to be bad.
Another way to think about it – Recall Blazing Saddles. Hedley Lamarr requested cutthroats and criminals to attack Rock Ridge. A group of Mexican banditos on line famously said, “Badges? We don’t need no stinkin’ badges!” Then they laughed and thru the badges on the ground.
Imagine if there had been a civil rights worker on set – who pulled the Mexicans aside and told them to use the badges as if they were matricula cards and convinced the bandits that they do need those stinking badges.
In this case – Bush & co, were like the Mexican bandits. Bush wanted to say, “NIE, I don’t need no stinking NIE, or UN, or Congress.” But he did need one.
And that NIE was like a fake badge for a Mexican bandit in Blazing Saddles. Iraq was Rock Ridge. Bush was the Mel Brooks character – Gov Lepetomaine. Lilly Von Schtup – not sure who her analogue is –
Dr Leo Strauss says
Tweety is that odd combination of completely un-self aware insecure narcissist. This morning on MSNBC early he was almost foaming at the mputh about the Clintons and her doomed campaign, etc. It is beyond self-parody.
Comment says
Is KLO an anti-arab racist – She excuses her magazines Lebanon lies by relaying the feeling that Ababs are liars. If that so, why are we liberating them?
These wingers often forget to maintain their pro Arab pose when they are stressed with an argument about something seemingly unrelated.
Btw – Rubin warning Yereven. LOL.
Comment says
Did you happen to catch Tweety tonight say that the “who would you rather have a beer with?” test for candidates is no longer valid – Rather, it’s just likeability. Pathetic – his entire show is about his own obsessions and he inflicts that on everyone. The beer question was super absurd in 2000 because Bush did not drink, but that did not stop Tweety from telling everyone Bush is great to have a beer with. Just like now, – he tells every Republican he likes that they remind him of Martin Luther. It’s a weird comment from anyone – but especially a Holy Cross grad. Maybe he has some religious conflict going on in his life now.
In any event – since that rancid populist Huckabee actually said Luther was his theological hero, it should be fair game for a a jounalist to grill him on live TV about some of Luther’s most controversial essays and ask him if he thinks it’s cool. Luther is his hero – he should elaborate. Poeple will cry foul when you bring up some of Luther’s meaner stuff – but eff ’em.
A Random Quote says
“NRO should have provided readers with more context and caveats in some posts from Lebanon this fall”
~KLO
Explaining awayt one of their
made up columns about Lebanon
Dr.LeoStrauss says
re “You [John McCain] must have gotten to their [Manchester Union-Leader] erogenous zones. What did you say to turn them on.?”
~Tweety
(tap)
(tap tap)
(tap)
Comment says
re – Unserious and frivolous debates – we have mixed feeling actually – We like it when it hurt the GOP candidates, but it’s sad and unfortunate. George Stephanopolous is a smart guy, but his performance on Sunday was totally ridiculous – lots of bs horserace questions about on candidates view of another candidates polling and horse race tactics.
Now listening to Tweety with McCain is painful – the endless dumb questions. “You’re the most gutsy .. You’re out there all alone …” Blah Blah – Tweety is supposed to be anti war. He’s pathetic.
A Random Quote says
“You [John McCain] must have gotten to their [Manchester Union-Leader] erogenous zones. What did you say to turn them on.?”
~Tweety
(Sweating)
Comment says
re The CNN GOP Youtube debate – Just loved reading the Corner and hear them kvetch about that ‘unserious’ debate – Have not bothered with the W. Standard, but sure hope they were annoyed too.
Here’s hoping the next debate features a lot of questions about topics like Biblical literalism (Romney very annoyed today on NPR being questioned about Genesis by Robert Seigel – LOL)
A bonus would be every candidate forced to anwers questions about that new Pullman movie – Philip Pullman. That movie is now under attack by many conservatives. It’s absolutely impossible for a politician to talk about anything Hollywood related without looking dumb and undignified – We know nothing about this Pullman movie – except hearing it’s closer to Hitchens than CS Lewis.
Anon says
The irony of Leo Strauss:
http://equinoxjournals.com/ojs/index.php/PT/article/view/4080/2483
Comment says
The bombing of Lebanon has almost disappeared from American memory – even though thousands of Americans were trapped for days while Condi had some birth pangs – Regularly in the last few months the war against that Qaeda faction in Lebanon was described as the most violent conflict in Lebanon since the Civil War – Siniora, for his own domestic reasons, refsres to the war all of his speeches, but those comments only appear on BBC and are edited out when the same speech is seen here. Meanwhile, people stil die nearly every day because they step on a cluster munition with US markings in the S, Leb. But it doesn’t exist.
” … for a journalist to have real or ‘perceived’ access meant that journalist himself/herself became a defacto source as Comment noted in the circle dance with Russert.”
This was actually noted in the Judge Tatel opinion re Judy Miller – He basically said she was not a reporter, but part of a criminal conspiracy – (btw – that movie is portraying her as a martyr. Bith Lurie and Beckensale are under the impression (or so they say) that Miller was a victim who just want to ‘speak truth to power’)
Dr.LeoStrauss says
re revolver, we’ve heard it credited it to both Herman and Joseph. Most commonly to HG — but it has the radicalism of JG in it.
One thing we’ve noticed about the journalists we know that get on CSPAN or cable news under the Warlord is how few of them had actual sources inside the Administration. We know this first hand. Literally, the Administration knew who were Enemies, Useful Idiots/Not Real Friends or Movement Friends far beyond Nixon. It’s easy to say but let’s think about what it means in the gritty reality of hour by hour workday.
First, for a journalist to have real or ‘perceived’ access meant that journalist himself/herself became a defacto source as Comment noted in the circle dance with Russert. So that journalist could start memes among other journalists who were locked out. And this microcosm would be self-referential and defensive almost like antibodies to outsiders (usefully dismissed as unserious). Second, those without either direct or ‘perceived’ indirect access were forced to triage second hand for gossip or ‘tea leaves’ readings or the generic talking points — repeated as a sign of fealty hoping to earn access. All very tawdry.
Even so, journalists are sharks, seeking new sources and tending old ones. All of them evaluate someone by what ‘circles’ they travel in. Seriousness means here (i) the same as the interlocutor; or (ii) new substantive area so a possible source even of gossip (which often is just premature news in DC); or (iii) socially a higher plateau to assist social climbing.
Taken together, the professional costs of ‘rocking the boat’ are substantial. The benefits of doing so are perhaps not clear at all. As one famous tv political personality said to me over lunch and mentioned over at STSOZ 1.0, “I am not going to fall on my sword over the Bush Administration [by taking them on and becoming an Oppositionist].”
If the actual cable channels in particular reported hard news and rewarded those who reported hard news, the incentive equilibrium changes. As long as opinion and talking head format predominate, it’s hard to see the incentives for prolonged healthy recovery.
We can’t leave the topic without noting One dysfunction that Few Will Talk About Because Of Abe Foxman et al. is that the normal Liberal/Conservative-Movement dichotomy was thrown in disarray by the Realm’s presence directly or indirectly in the equation. So-called liberals silent or in the tank for the Neocon Project and now like the Neocons whitewashing the past do so for a reason.
One micro example of this is how the major bit netroots sites all took a dive on the Israeli bombing of Beirut (and violations of U.S. law and arms transfers doing so) because they didn’t want to fork the netroots base before 2006 on a divisive issue. To me, not one of the netroots’ finest hours. Whether or pro or con, to punt on what was then the biggest story on the globe — well it speaks volumes.
So all of the above means, there are alot of incentives for journalists to help the Administration and Neocons airbrush the past. You saw the post we did here earlier on Chevy Chase (search for those words to the right). It takes a substantial income to live in the D.C. area. Layoffs are increasing in print and broadcast DC bureaux. A family can’t eat ‘courage’ no matter what Rather might think.
We are ‘served’ journalistically by pygmies.
Comment says
Doctor Strauss – Do you have any ideas for the inevitable screenplay and movie to dramatize Franklin Foer’s investigation into the Scott Beauchamp stories for TNR?
Anon says
British papers from Rupe say sixteen words from an Israeli professor …
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2983719.ece
Anon says
re: Black V. Bourgeois – Doktor, weren’t we ahead of Black (and Bower) pointing out the bourgeois aspects of the case against him during his own trial? It seems he may have taken a peak at STSOZ 1.0 sometime during the trial or maybe he hired someone to read. Anyway – Bower looks to get some more licks in:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2982779.ece
Anon says
LOL – when we saw HRC in command after the hostage thing, we knew it was only a matter of time before this:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWY4MWI5MjU0ZWI5Yjk5MzRkOTRlMTg2OTAxZmY2ZDI=
inquire says
What I gathered from reading that Economist article (and this more detailed linked piece) was that basically – Who Knows? You may question their sobriety and their optimism, but the subtext at the Economist seemed to be concerned vexation.
All could be lost, or all could be fine, at this point its too close to call. The staff of the Economist are doing their best to evaluate the global economic situation by adopting a stoic longview. By continuing with their reserved style, they are countering some of the hyperventilating rhetoric of the left who predicting an an imminent economic crash. But all along, the Economist authors seem to proceed without entirely rulling out a panic scenario that many lef-wing analysts are soon expecting.
Will there be an orderly transition as these Economist articles hints, or a ““Panic of 2008” as UPI has now named it remains to be seen. I wish someone had an idea, the world’s experts seem to be hedging their bets and waiting for the hive-mind of the global market to come up with a solution one way or another.
Hunter says
Sounds like a relatively strong economy to me, especially over time.
As for that Paul link, that was not an endorsement of all or any of what he says, but his point about the strength of the dollar (not to mention the rest of the US economy) being dependent on the goodwill of OPEC (who don’t exactly like us) I think is sound, and frightening. That it’s also dependent on the holders of dollars as foreign reserves, who also don’t really like us further reduces our room for manouver. That it’s also dependent on a fundamentally sound internal economy should also be cause for concern in the age of the unbridled pursuit of “(reckless) financial arbitrage”. And so on and so forth. The FIA debacle may have elucidated a lack of Congressional oversight, but it also elucidates a weakness of the defense industry, which is a fairly major sector of our economy right now. The Pentagon’s $750 Billion (non-war-related) budget is paid for in dollars, not gold or euros or whatever. My problem is I can’t see any good news. This might be my psychology blinding me to what’s out there, or it might be the case that, in the macro, every aspect of our economy is so unstable that a slight move one way or another will trigger… well like I say, I don’t even want to think about it. But I can’t stop.
Comment says
What do we build? Umm, The Big Mac, The Big Gulp, Coffee bars with exposed plumbing, Jails, Lawsuits, Microsoft Vista software (patches made elsewhere), The Super Big Gulp, The M-16 (except some parts), canned fart spray, chili cheese dogs, Ames strain anthrax, gastric bypass surgeon techniques, neocons, competetive admission nursery schools, Doc Bloc, SAT classes, *69, Ted Stevens bridges and airports, bacon bits, etc
Comment says
‘It has been said, rightly, that he who holds the gold makes the rules,” So says Ron Paul, but that does not make it so. The Russians and South Africans held the gold.
Hunter says
what do we build anymore?
Comment says
Hunter – Nixon was paranoid – he thought people were out to get him – He thought the Kennedy’s were gonna get him. He thought the media wanted to sink him.
IMO – Chavez is the least of our worries – Bush wouldn’t mind as nice pretext to seize his oil though. China has an interest in maintaining the value of dollars. But who knows – we may all be whistling dixie. It does seem to us that down pressure on the dollar continues until it seems that some fiscal discipline will be restored. Then it may pop up again. Over time, it’s the relative strength of our economy that matters most – If we build it, they will come/
A Random Quote says
“[Fed Chief] Martin, Douglas Dillon and Budget Director Kermit Gordon are lobbying for measures that would drastically affect the nation’s foreign and domestic policies. Among the proposals that one or all three of them have forwarded: an exit tag of $50 or $100 per person to discourage tourism abroad, direct controls on U.S. investments abroad, a further cutback in foreign aid and, if necessary, a sharp reduction of U.S. troop strength in Europe … The State Department believes, in fact, that a $3 billion payments deficit should not really bother a nation that boasts both a $650 billion economy and twice as much in claims against foreign currencies as foreigners have against the dollar. It argues that the U.S. could reduce the deficit by $500 million simply by counting short-term foreign deposits in the U.S. as assets instead of liabilities. – Strong support for this optimistic view came last week from Pierre-Paul Schweitzer, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund and the world’s top currency controller. “A more realistic assessment would some what lower the figures for the overall deficit,” he said. “The structure of the U.S. balance of payments is one of underlying strength.”
~Time 2-12-1965
Comment says
Coulter says “all conservative instinctively reach for their guns” when they hear Rudy say he is the most electable. Doktor Strauss, is she quoting Goering or Goebbels?
Comment says
Watching Coulter speakingt to this YAF National Journalism Center group is interesting – The audience is just totally non blinking – Coulter gets easy laughs from jokes about turninng Iran into rubble, while restricting abortion at home.
Hunter says
If Chavez decides to f the US, he could do it by dumping Venezuela’s foreign reserves. If he did, he’d have the advantage of actually getting something for them since by moving first, he gets out of dollars before the hyperinflation comes. Is he unstable enough to do it (sure seems like it lately, picking a random and useless fight with Colombia, etc…)? If he does, what happens? I almost don’t even want to think about it, but should I be stockpiling canned food and stuff? There seem to be about a hundred ways things could go from bad to unbelievable in a very short period of time; the inevitability of OPEC leaving the dollar is the farthest out and the slowest, but the most certain. Or am I just paranoid (I mean, I know I’m paranoid, but is that all, or am I right, too)?
Hunter says
re: the gold thing
I’m just sayin’, is all…
A Random Quote says
“High officials of the Federal Reserve Board believe that De Gaulle, aided by Spain’s Franco, is trying to form a new European axis designed to embarrass and weaken the U.S. by attacking the dollar.”
Time Magazine 2-12-1965
A Random Quote says
“De Gaulle probably does not really believe that the world will return to the gold standard. He has been much influenced by Jacques Rueff, his economic mentor and probably the world’s foremost proponent of a return to gold; Rueff greeted De Gaulle’s blast last week as “an invitation to a common enterprise that will deliver the West from an absurd monetary system.”
But De Gaulle, however much he may admire the theory, is an artist of the possible, and he is probably using the threat of a gold standard in hopes of pressuring the U.S. and Britain into accepting lesser changes in the monetary system favorable to France.”
~Time Magazine 2-12-1965
Comment says
After watching that panel and recalling last week seeing some mainstream liberal who wrote the book “Curveball” (‘we were all wrong’) we are re-confirmed in our belief that mainstream media is just ill equiped to take on the movement. They seem to think they can challange Rove by calling Bush names – It never occurs to them – Never = that when they get memos and talking points from WH officials that they are not smart enough to realize what’s going on.
Coulter is on now – sure people can laugh at her. Bombs away – she wins.
Comment says
Above we were referring to David Sanger’s revisionism – How he falsely recalls Bush harping on UBL. All the other panalists just nod along.
Comment says
Now some more revisionism of Bush = He is saying Bush never wanted to discuss AQ Kahn – prefering instead to discuss UBL. This is the opposite of the truth.
In fact – for a while, in 2002, Bush’s Whitehouse treated reeporters as persona non grata if they kept asking about UBL after Kabul fell and UBL supposedly escaped at Tora Bora – The rightist press and the magazines treated people who asked about UBL as enemies trying to undermind the case for going to Iraq.
But David Sanger just forgets all that – He revises and say Bush just harped on it all
In fact, Bush talked about AQ Kahn a lot too.
Comment says
Then Gregory has a demented idea of what constitutes a tough question – He thinks asking Bush if he is credible is a tough question, because Bush says “no” and conservatives get mad.
It’s just frustrating – You don’t have to be rude to the President to expose the hollowness of his words. The set up this absure lapdog v. rude dichotomy.
Comment says
Listening to Dan Rathe, Kalb, Sanger, D. Gregory, and Helen T. on c-span. Very frustrating. Helen is the only one the tells the truth about pre-war press law dogs and propaganda. But she has a grating personality that makes undecided viewers wince and prefer then David Sanger version of the tale (‘we were all wrong’).
The fact on the matter – leak a false story to Russert, then get Russert to confirm that false story with another soource, then get Russert to report, then refer to Russert as the source, then leak to Judy Miller – do the same thing, etc. Pretty soon Miller and Russert are the sources and then get Powell to wear a toilet bowl on his head and lie to the UN. Then get Russert to refer to Powell etc
This was all so obviouos, but these late Romans cannot just say thay.
David Sanger is on now saying that nobody, but nobody, has any idea that we would be help Iran and we would be bogged down.
Ofcourse – Sanger isn’t lying – he just would regard all those people who told the truth before the war as not “serious” people – so he now says “nobody” warned about it.
Anon says
Ok Dok – Here’s some Newt to play off Blankley – Time’s Rome to Econ’s Athens. Flashback to 1965 and De Gaulle wages war on the dollar and the Economist cult of old men in dark rooms conspiring about currency:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,840572,00.html
Comment says
Here’s our favorite part:
“the Chinese do not want …. and they have little interest in …”
And:
” Beyond all that, China’s leaders want to be taken seriously …”
——————–
So the Chinese can be forgiven for thinking “who are these arrogant pricks. Taken seriously? Who are they kidding. Oy!”