In short, American’s influence to the rest of the world is not simply coming from its forces, and moral model (which not many people buy it except themselves). It’s because Americans BUY from other economies -- they are the biggest customer of nearly any other major economy and hence who make their product and service in American’s term, gets most business. That’s why US is still the lead, despite the dire desperation of Europe, Asia and Americans (i.e. France, Iran, Venezuela) leader to declare US’s collapse.
As the 2008 economic down turn was reported as led by American, the argument of collapse of USA is well back alive.
Well I think it was half truth, half bragging when Americans said American led the world into recession. It's true that American got in to recession first, but did American invaded Europe to force Europe go into recession? However, it’s true that when my customers (the biggest ones) suffer, my business suffers.
Of course when the self-esteem drives Americans to proclaim themselves the leader of everything, including recession, European and Asian are for once, happy to cede this battle of "leader".
Real truth is (not to offend European and Asian leaders), if American is not the leader, and every single other country was so good in managing their own growth without "lead" of American, why the recession affected you so much?
I've read so many articles claiming American secretly staged currency war to steal wealth from Japan to China; some claims American secretly stage currency war to undermine Europe or Oil export countries. All maybe true, except one thing, seldom the trick needed for any of these objectives are inline with one another (i.e. USD needs to appreciate to undermine Euro, while it needs depreciate to undermine China).
One wide spread idea is US “forced” Oil export countries to accept USD so to steal wealth from everyone who purchase Oil. A similar claim by handful Chinese economists made similar accusation of American purchase Chinese goods, let Chinese purchase their bond, then depress USD to steal wealth from China.
However, what they failed to say is American buys most Oil, and is the biggest buyer of goods from China. If you have to accept one type of payment, whose currency will you accept? Your biggest customers’ or the smallest? OK mystery solved. Americans do not need to force OPEC or China, India to accept USD, being their biggest customer, the export countries are more than happy to accept USD and ship goods (at least on the negotiation table, they may complain after the money is secured in their bank account).
In short, every country has their own interests to care, and if US does not pay too much attention to whatever a foreign country think is best for their interest, that’s why these foreign countries have their own government.
Another example is during Crude Oil crisis, Euro was appreciating significantly so that the Crude price increased affected Euro-zone much less than it affected US (because Oil is priced in USD, Euro can benefit from high Euro which values USD and Oil lower when Oil price in USD is very high). However, some European economists blamed US in forcing Euro to appreciate to undermine Europe’s export. Yeah, when Oil price falls, and Euro falls, some European economists blame US in undermining Euro’s value to undermine Europe. They are the one to blame no matter what.
Blaming other country “not taking care of me” is nothing short of self-centric selfishness. It is also a less obvious way of saying “I shall be led by thee”, although in a crying foul way.
Don’ get me wrong, I’m not saying US is good. Given the way they are burning their own and other’s money, I don’t know how long can they spend like this. And when they can’t anymore, it will really “lead” the whole world into deep depression as I guess no one else has the power and willingness to spend like that any more.
All in all, Americans are stupid in spending money they don’t have. However, the rest of the world is so much influenced by US, not because they force you (well they do enjoy being the “leader”), it is because they spend and the rest of the world gets paid.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Why I can't trust President Obama?
I've been telling people during US president election that I simply do not trust Mr. Obama. And since trust is a "thinking" rather than fact, so as you guessed I did not convince too many people.
Still, I'd like to document some of the evidence and will come back to this "untrusted" argument 4 years later. To see if I was wrong. (or those who scolded me in not trusting the president they loved were wrong).
NAFTA (well OK, you know I'm Canadian)
During Primary, Mr Obama had a NAFTA-gate. When he talked to blue collar workers in Ohio, he mentioned he'd like to re-open NAFTA. Then later his advisers advised Canadian government that's just a "talk", won't be a "walk".
Ironically, when the Canadian government tried to defend itself (and Mr. Obama) in telling journalists "don't worry, it's just a political pose", it became a "scandal" for the Canadian government (NDP and it's associates accused Canadian Tory government of tarnishing Mr. Obama's image) -- so the one who told the truth was wrong, and the one who "talk the talk but not walk the walk" is correct? (this is yet another perfect example of political correctness.)
Well, next, he spoke to Hispanic crowd and said Hispanic Americans have learnt English, it's time that "you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish". Politically it's not wrong(again), but if you agree that United States is a free country that many people came from lots of places and already speak more than one language, you will doubt it's fair that the general American should be required to learn another language. Here in Canada, both English and French are OFFICIAL languages, yet, you seldom find politician forces local resident to learn the other one. It's amazing that he can pitch the politically correct statement to the correct audience (one of his unbeatable ability). However, political correctness is only as correct as politics -- it's not really fair. Yes, it please the Hispanic group, but should a Japanese decent learn to speak Japanese, and so do all other Americans? Or should the Japanese parent make sure their children also speak Spanish? (Oh, sorry, I forgot there are not enough Japanese immigrants in US that can sway the election result...)
And then he spoke about his race, he first repel his mother's "whiteness", then wanted to check if Bill Clinton is a real "black president" by examine the poor old guy's dance and singing. And then when his pastor's nothing less than hatred speech broke out he gave a speech to "all Americans" asking for a peaceful racial relation. I do not think his race should be an issue at all, as the president race is choosing one individual not one race to lead America. It's his campaign, not his opponents played his race card most often, and if he thinks his race does not give him advantage in the race, he's either lying or too dumb to be trustworthy. In a country where his race is most popular in sports, music and Hollywood; where his race occupies the center of "human rights" where his race is also in the center of fighting against "discrimination" means he sails in the wind of maximum espousal minus the obligation to be scrutinized (any criticize is deemed as racial discrimination), I don't see why he thought it's not an advantage.
I'm really sad that Colin Powell did not run and even sadder in hearing Colin supported Mr. Obama -- a very trustworthy figure supported least trustworthy one (in president races). It should have been the reverse (I doubt Mr. Obama has the courage to do what Mr. Powell did though).
Mr Obama is really good at writings and speeches that fume enthusiasm. It's an ability not may people have, Bill Clinton is one, Adolf Hitler is another example. (to egg bone pickers:)Not to mean Barack or Bill are similar to Adolf Hitler in every way. Just like I breath air and Adolf Hitler breath the air too, as a human Adolf Hitler does share many similar quality with all the rest of us and as a successful politician in election (he went in to office by election), he did have some ability as some other successful politicians, either evil or angle.
Mr. Obama is very good at pitching targeted message to different groups and apparently this ability gave him an image of "for everyone". Also his wonderful writings and speeches ignite lots of passion. However, managing a country is not exactly the same, you cannot manage different groups differently (that's called discrimination), and passion can be a dangerous thing (lots of German were passionate for Adolf Hitler, is an example).
I would hope Mr. Obama will not do much damage to the world. Although as Canadian, we love and hate US, it's not to our own benefit to see US collapse because Americans buy our product more than we ourselves do. But hey, after all America is a foreign country, if someone has to collapse, it'd better be them than us.
Good luck our American friends, the key problem of democracy is it ensures people will get what they want (assuming people knows what they need). It has been proven false by so called democracies in mid-east elected many extremists (like Hamas in Palestine). It's likely the stupid Bush's export of democracy is resulting in a backlash (or revenge shall we say) that Americans are suffering from the Democracy themselves again and again (well electing Bush in is already one of such suffering). At least they probably will stop exporting democracy in several years.
Oh, by the way, the real key benefit of democracy is if someone does the job badly, he (and his party) gets punished by being voted out of office and that's exactly what happened on Nov 4th, 2008 - after screwing up the country for 8 years, Bush and Republicans are voted out of office. However, the positive meaning is backlooking - it's the punish of Republican that pose the biggest benefit (in the long run), voting in Demo? It might be better if Hilary was the Democratic nominee.
Still, I'd like to document some of the evidence and will come back to this "untrusted" argument 4 years later. To see if I was wrong. (or those who scolded me in not trusting the president they loved were wrong).
NAFTA (well OK, you know I'm Canadian)
During Primary, Mr Obama had a NAFTA-gate. When he talked to blue collar workers in Ohio, he mentioned he'd like to re-open NAFTA. Then later his advisers advised Canadian government that's just a "talk", won't be a "walk".
Ironically, when the Canadian government tried to defend itself (and Mr. Obama) in telling journalists "don't worry, it's just a political pose", it became a "scandal" for the Canadian government (NDP and it's associates accused Canadian Tory government of tarnishing Mr. Obama's image) -- so the one who told the truth was wrong, and the one who "talk the talk but not walk the walk" is correct? (this is yet another perfect example of political correctness.)
Well, next, he spoke to Hispanic crowd and said Hispanic Americans have learnt English, it's time that "you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish". Politically it's not wrong(again), but if you agree that United States is a free country that many people came from lots of places and already speak more than one language, you will doubt it's fair that the general American should be required to learn another language. Here in Canada, both English and French are OFFICIAL languages, yet, you seldom find politician forces local resident to learn the other one. It's amazing that he can pitch the politically correct statement to the correct audience (one of his unbeatable ability). However, political correctness is only as correct as politics -- it's not really fair. Yes, it please the Hispanic group, but should a Japanese decent learn to speak Japanese, and so do all other Americans? Or should the Japanese parent make sure their children also speak Spanish? (Oh, sorry, I forgot there are not enough Japanese immigrants in US that can sway the election result...)
And then he spoke about his race, he first repel his mother's "whiteness", then wanted to check if Bill Clinton is a real "black president" by examine the poor old guy's dance and singing. And then when his pastor's nothing less than hatred speech broke out he gave a speech to "all Americans" asking for a peaceful racial relation. I do not think his race should be an issue at all, as the president race is choosing one individual not one race to lead America. It's his campaign, not his opponents played his race card most often, and if he thinks his race does not give him advantage in the race, he's either lying or too dumb to be trustworthy. In a country where his race is most popular in sports, music and Hollywood; where his race occupies the center of "human rights" where his race is also in the center of fighting against "discrimination" means he sails in the wind of maximum espousal minus the obligation to be scrutinized (any criticize is deemed as racial discrimination), I don't see why he thought it's not an advantage.
I'm really sad that Colin Powell did not run and even sadder in hearing Colin supported Mr. Obama -- a very trustworthy figure supported least trustworthy one (in president races). It should have been the reverse (I doubt Mr. Obama has the courage to do what Mr. Powell did though).
Mr Obama is really good at writings and speeches that fume enthusiasm. It's an ability not may people have, Bill Clinton is one, Adolf Hitler is another example. (to egg bone pickers:)Not to mean Barack or Bill are similar to Adolf Hitler in every way. Just like I breath air and Adolf Hitler breath the air too, as a human Adolf Hitler does share many similar quality with all the rest of us and as a successful politician in election (he went in to office by election), he did have some ability as some other successful politicians, either evil or angle.
Mr. Obama is very good at pitching targeted message to different groups and apparently this ability gave him an image of "for everyone". Also his wonderful writings and speeches ignite lots of passion. However, managing a country is not exactly the same, you cannot manage different groups differently (that's called discrimination), and passion can be a dangerous thing (lots of German were passionate for Adolf Hitler, is an example).
I would hope Mr. Obama will not do much damage to the world. Although as Canadian, we love and hate US, it's not to our own benefit to see US collapse because Americans buy our product more than we ourselves do. But hey, after all America is a foreign country, if someone has to collapse, it'd better be them than us.
Good luck our American friends, the key problem of democracy is it ensures people will get what they want (assuming people knows what they need). It has been proven false by so called democracies in mid-east elected many extremists (like Hamas in Palestine). It's likely the stupid Bush's export of democracy is resulting in a backlash (or revenge shall we say) that Americans are suffering from the Democracy themselves again and again (well electing Bush in is already one of such suffering). At least they probably will stop exporting democracy in several years.
Oh, by the way, the real key benefit of democracy is if someone does the job badly, he (and his party) gets punished by being voted out of office and that's exactly what happened on Nov 4th, 2008 - after screwing up the country for 8 years, Bush and Republicans are voted out of office. However, the positive meaning is backlooking - it's the punish of Republican that pose the biggest benefit (in the long run), voting in Demo? It might be better if Hilary was the Democratic nominee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)