The meter is running: Obama's first year

[GasBandit]

You're getting closer, yes, but using it to extrapolate a point I was not making. I wasn't arguing how the US stays hegemon, I was saying that those not living in the nation that is currently hegemon are pleased by perceived weakening of that hegemon, even if they don't realize that is what is pleasing them - they may just see it as a strengthening of their own position.

I am not saying I want the US to be the only gun in a knife fight, I'm saying that it is natural for everybody else to want to have a gun too, and getting that gun would make them feel good while weakening the position of the previously sole gunman. Previously the "gunman" wanted to upgrade from a gun to a bazooka... and now the gunman wants to chuck his gun in favor of a knife, which also makes the other knife-cum-gunmen happy.

 

[tegid]

Hm... I like this comparison. Now, let's see if you can understand our point: it's not that we (I, at the very least) like Obama best because we think he wants to downgrade from gun to knife. It's fine if he wants to keep the gun, I'm sure he will and I don't have any problem with that. It's just that he doesn't go flailing it around and shouting 'I GOT A PISTOL!'

 

[North_Ranger]

The EU beefing up their military capabilities and co-operating more in the military sphere would restrict the US room to maneuver in Europe through making the EU states that are a part of NATO (and EU states in general) less reliant on US and NATO support for their defensive needs, which might lead to them taking more independent actions vis a vis the US position on any particular issue. As a result, the US influence in europe would be curtailed somewhat, leading to a loss of options there which is generally considered to be a bad thing in foreign policy. Am I getting close to what you mean by your relative weakening of US power, GasBandit?

If so, then it seems to me that in essence you are saying you want the US to be the only nation that has a gun in a knife fight, to remain a military hegemon. Historically speaking, that has never been possible in the long run. Regardless of your views on the Balance of Power theory, a unipolar world has been an unstable arrangement as smaller powers begin to arm themselves and ally with one another to balance the strength of the hegemon, out of fear of otherwise being dominated by it. Now the hegemon can do things to forestall this development such as adopt a conciliatory diplomatic tone to allay their fears and through international institutional arrangements designed to limit the returns to power (in essence convincing others that it's more advantageous for them to work together with the hegemon rather than set up a competing system), or hasten it by beginning to throw it's weight around. But the period of military ascendancy has not lasted forever. Or at least that's the theory as far as I know.

So, if your view on the foreign policy goals of the US is that you should limit everyone else into having knives, I'm afraid you're fighting an ultimately loosing battle.

Just my unqualified two cents.

EDIT: Spelling check

Lemme guess, Political History at UTA? Very impressive.

Ihan vaan varoitukseksi, tämä "kaasuryöväri" on täys sekopää. Kannattaa varoa...

 

[zero]

Much as you would like to think otherwise, the earth is a closed system and its nations and peoples are, for want of ability to escape to other planets, locked in competition for finite resources. In a competition, say, a race, it is only natural to want to win. Thus, it is not an attack on your morality or your character when I say you want to comparatively weaken the united states by comparatively strengthening yourself. It's an acknowledgment of human nature, natural law, physics and fact. We cooperate and ally for common interests, defense, that sort of thing... but if you believe we are not economic and political competitors, you have lulled yourself into a fantasy world.

Much as YOU would like to think otherwise (although why somebody would LIKE to think otherwise is completely beyond me), it has been well known since at least the Ricardian theory of comparative advantage (but in fact much earlier than that) that mankind is NOT playing a zero-sum game, where one's losses is other's earnings. Heck Gas. as an advocate of free-market, I expected you to be a little bit more educated on classical economic theory...

Admit it Gas, deep inside you're a Marxist, and next week you will be pulling out some theory on class struggle, and how the proletariat should strengthen themselves in order to weaken the capitalists...

 

[TommiR]

You're getting closer, yes, but using it to extrapolate a point I was not making. I wasn't arguing how the US stays hegemon, I was saying that those not living in the nation that is currently hegemon are pleased by perceived weakening of that hegemon, even if they don't realize that is what is pleasing them - they may just see it as a strengthening of their own position.

I am not saying I want the US to be the only gun in a knife fight, I'm saying that it is natural for everybody else to want to have a gun too, and getting that gun would make them feel good while weakening the position of the previously sole gunman. Previously the "gunman" wanted to upgrade from a gun to a bazooka... and now the gunman wants to chuck his gun in favor of a knife, which also makes the other knife-cum-gunmen happy.

Ah, okay, sorry. So if I got that right, one of the problems you have with Obama is that you believe he is compromising too much on US security, and you interpret the results of the 2004 poll as showing that a reduction in US capabilities is a significant factor in his general popularity amongst europeans (whom you perceive to see a US weakening as a relative uplift for european influence in the world). But that other nations or groups of nations potentially beginning to balance the US and threatening it's hegemon status is not a problem per se, more akin to something of a matter of course. Hopefully I got it right, I'm honestly not trying to make any strawmen here

Personally, I think tegid put it pretty well. I can second his views on why many people like Obama and his approach to foreign policy issues, particularly when it is contrasted with that of his predecessor.

Lemme guess, Political History at UTA? Very impressive.

Ihan vaan varoitukseksi, tämä "kaasuryöväri" on täys sekopää. Kannattaa varoa...

Thanks, a good guess but not quite, it's my sister who studies the stuff there
But I've read a couple of her course books, as I have something of an interest in these matters.

Kiitti, pidetään varoitus mielessä. Ainahan niitä kaiken näköisiä jokunen löytyy, kattoo nyt ja etenee varoen...

 

[North_Ranger]

Jep jep. Mitä helkkaria sä muuten teet hereillä näin myöhään? XD

 

[TommiR]

:lol:Lomaa vielä huominen. Mutta kyllä tästä tarttee nukkumaan jo kohta lähteä...

 

[North_Ranger]

Samat sanat. Etenkin kun pitäs toi perkeleen gradu saada vielä valmiiksi... Hyvät yöt, tamperelainen, ja näyttäydypä vähän useammin. Heitäpä vaikka kuva itsestäsi päälaudalle

 

[strawman]

Much as you would like to think otherwise, the earth is a closed system and its nations and peoples are, for want of ability to escape to other planets, locked in competition for finite resources.

I was wondering if you really were riding the zero sum game horse, and this is proof enough.

I don't believe it, but I'm an optimist.

 

[@Li3n]

You forgot the part where his statement is stupid because no one wants to be weak... so by his logic everyone wants to weaken the US, whether or not the actions undertaken benefit the US in other areas besides the global hegemony thing too.

You're starting to catch on. Everyone *does* want to weaken the US, even if only to make themselves comparatively stronger.

Yes, it's almost capitalistic even. Good thing you're not for breaking up monopolies in order to make for a better playing field that would benefit everyone (you where against the government breaking up AT&T right?).

But i forget, you're just scared your future european overlords will force you to have affordable health care and environmentally friendly cars, those dictatorial bastards.

Yeah Gas, by becoming someone's equal that someone is no longer the strongest... and next week we'll be learning about algebra.

So you agree with me. Glad we had this little chat. The reasons why Europeans (and Chinese and Russians and Iranians and North Koreans) like Obama is the same reason why foxes like old, blind, deaf dogs to guard henhouses.

Team America, guardians of the worlds resources... because everyone else would just be using them.

But i forget, you're a firm believer that competition is bad for everyone and the only good arangement is for one entity to hold all the power.

Much as you would like to think otherwise, the earth is a closed system and its nations and peoples are, for want of ability to escape to other planets, locked in competition for finite resources.

Oh man, and i was afraid you might comment about how my previous moking arguments had more to do with economic theory then military power... thanks for the reasurance (also, having the gun doesn't make you better off overall, unless you think Oliver Twist had a great childhood).

But if we're gonna run with all it, fun fact, the EU has been the worlds biggest economy for a while now, so it's you americans that want to weaken us... so natch.



Now for some boring seriousness now: you're original statement pretty much said that the europeans want the US to become weaker by actually doing badly, which isn't supported by the fact that europeans want to be strong. Military strenght and a strong middle class aren't correlated.

Your next stand has logic behind it, but it's based on the premise that it's better to be a bully then an equal, which only works when you bring in the whole Evil Empire stuff, which is why you felt like mentioning, and i quote: " (and Chinese and Russians and Iranians and North Koreans) "

 

[@Li3n]

Oh, and here are some terrorists for you:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/04/12/airport.shooting/

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/998468231.html?dids=998468231:998468231&FMT=ABS

 

[Covar]

You forgot the part where his statement is stupid because no one wants to be weak... so by his logic everyone wants to weaken the US, whether or not the actions undertaken benefit the US in other areas besides the global hegemony thing too.

You're starting to catch on. Everyone *does* want to weaken the US, even if only to make themselves comparatively stronger. [/QUOTE]


Yes, it's almost capitalistic even. Good thing you're not for breaking up monopolies in order to make for a better playing field that would benefit everyone (you where against the government breaking up AT&T right?). [/quote]
I wasn't. I tried to make an opinion, but the matter was long settled before I reached a conclusion.

 

[GasBandit]

Actually (I feel like I'm having to say this over and over again) I *was* for the breakup of AT&T. A lot of people seem to forget I'm not an anarchist... I guess maybe it's just easier to remember me as the guy who hates all government or something. I do believe that government has a responsibility, within the nation, to ensure competition. But an important distinction here is that to assure the continuance of competition does not require continued control. The breakup of AT&T is a good example - rather than nationalize AT&T to assure "universal, affordable telephone service" they simply broke it up. Fast forward a few decades, and we have a highly competitive array of consumer choices for telephony - along with the best prices and level of service... all provided by the private sector.

@lien is also correct when he says that Americans want to weaken the EU - a lot of our relative economic weakness comes from the weakness of our currency. Strengthening our currency would have the side effect of comparatively weakening the EU's share of the pie. QED. What many of you also don't seem to grasp (except TommiR does) is that I am not implying that anybody is just sitting around saying "We gotta think of ways to weaken the other guys," I'm saying that all our desires to be strong as a nation (and not just militarily, I'm also saying economically and politically) have the effect of comparatively weakening the other nations. Also, while the planet itself is finite, capital isn't necessarily so. That's the beauty of capitalism over socialism.

For those of you who don't believe the earth's resources are finite, why all the fuss about recycling? About deforestation? Do you believe the earth is regenerating resources on its own faster than we can use them?

Scarcity is what drives value. If something is not scarce, it is cheap (or free). If something is scarce (but useful), it has value commensurate with supply vs demand.

Ironically enough, this means the one thing truly worthless is people.

 

[zero]

Actually (I feel like I'm having to say this over and over again) I *was* for the breakup of AT&T.

Well, that I can confirm. I distinctly remember you defending the breakup of AT&T more than once

For those of you who don't believe the earth's resources are finite, why all the fuss about recycling? About deforestation? Do you believe the earth is regenerating resources on its own faster than we can use them?

Well, well, GasBandit, a Malthusianist... I take back all I said about GB being a Marxist...

But seriously, Malthusianism grossly underestimate the human ingenuity that has been constantly succeeding in creating more wealth using less resources (Using, for instance, recycling! Got it now?)

Scarcity is what drives value. If something is not scarce, it is cheap (or free). If something is scarce (but useful), it has value commensurate with supply vs demand.
Ironically enough, this means the one thing truly worthless is people.

I know this is tongue-in-cheek, but always keep in mind that production comes from Capital and Labor, in addition to natural resources. And again, don't forget that it is people's ingenuity that allows the production of more using progressively less natural resources.

 

[tegid]

What many of you also don't seem to grasp (except TommiR does) is that I am not implying that anybody is just sitting around saying "We gotta think of ways to weaken the other guys," I'm saying that all our desires to be strong as a nation (and not just militarily, I'm also saying economically and politically) have the effect of comparatively weakening the other nations.

On another note, I find it very telling that so many of the "I like obama" posts are coming from Europeans. Polls of Europeans have shown they overwhelmingly desire america weakened on the international stage.

We were answering to this, where you did say that we want a less powerful US. I'm saying we don't want that explicitly, you are saying it's a natural consequence of what we want. I say I don't care. This discussion makes no sense.

The point we are really arguing over is that you say we like Obama because he makes you weaker. You have been told we don't. Even if you show europeans want a weaker US, however you want to do that, it doesn't prove your point. The explanation you've been given is that we like him better because he makes less of an absurd show of your strength regardless of wether it is there or not. What reason do you have to dispute this?

 

[@Li3n]

Sarcasm, not something that goes over well in this thread... dully noted.



Also, having a bazooka vs others having guns has little to do with the economic concept of scarcity... military power is relative while limited resources are absolute.

For example if resources are limited to 100 units if the US has 55 and the EU 45 then the only way for the EU to get to 50 is to take 5 from the US, bringing the Us down to 50 too. While for military power there's no fixed upper limit, if the US had power level 55 and the EU 45, the n the EU could go to 50 while the US could stay at 55, with no loss of any real resources/capabilities or whatnot, the "weakening" you're talking about would be because instead of 10 power units in front it would only have 5.

What many of you also don't seem to grasp (except TommiR does) is that I am not implying that anybody is just sitting around saying \"We gotta think of ways to weaken the other guys,\" I'm saying that all our desires to be strong as a nation (and not just militarily, I'm also saying economically and politically) have the effect of comparatively weakening the other nations.

That's exactly what your post was implying in the beginning and you know it... "we like Obama because he's making you weaker, which makes us relatively stronger without doing anything, let's have some more socialism " !

But let's say you didn't do that... what you where actually saying is that we like Obama because he's not keeping us weak so that the US will be comparatively strong! Sure, i'm fine with that, we like people that aren't bullies.*


*not that i don't find the idea that Bush made the US stronger in any way laughable...

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

Sarcasm, not something that goes over well in this thread... dully noted.

Indeed.

By the way, was that a typo, or some more sarcasm? "dully" means "in a dull manner."


("duly" - one L - is the proper word )

 

[@Li3n]

That was me relying to much on the spell checker... best way to ruin your knowledge of a 2nd language. That and not getting enough sleep... did get the Tank Burger achievement though... good night.

 

[@Li3n]

Oh, and here's a terrorist that did the exact same thing during Bush's time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe_bomb