Have you ever read an article, and after the experience has some déjà vu believing you just may have watched an “Oprah” show’ loosing IQ points in the process?
I read this article, and was shocked that this type of journalism has access to our nation’s voting electorate. Yet there is not one explanation of the reason, or the reasoning, for the conscripts in the article.
Is it any wonder that we have a voting population that is as far, from understanding the problems the world faces, as they do?
This is a national journalist, David Ignatius: Adaptability key for US to weather economic change. Who could possibly agree?
WASHINGTON — Is American power in decline, relative to the rest of the world? That question is at the center of a provocative study by the U.S. intelligence community exploring what the world might look like in 2030.
The answer, judging by comments from a panel convened to discuss the topic, is that America faces serious trouble: The U.S. economy is slowing, relative to its Asian competitors, which will make it harder for the country to assert its traditional leadership role in decades ahead. That, in turn, could make for a less stable world.
This pessimism among intelligence analysts contrasts sharply with the relentlessly upbeat prognostications made by politicians, especially the field of Republican presidential candidates, who describe an America of perpetual sunshine and unchallenged leadership. That’s certainly not the view of this nonpartisan group.
The unclassified study, titled “Global Trends 2030,” is being prepared by the National Intelligence Council, which is part of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. This is the fifth such study (the first, published in 1996, looked toward 2010) and the only one to radically question U.S. staying power.
Be honest about change
In preparing the 2030 document, the analysts decided to focus on America’s role in shaping the global future. “You have to be intellectually honest that there are changes in the U.S. role, and the role of rising powers,” that will affect events, explains Matthew Burrows, a counselor at the National Intelligence Council and the principal author of the report.
Burrows and other contributors met in Washington early this month to hear outside comments — and it was an eye-opening discussion. A somewhat pessimistic paper on the U.S. economic outlook, prepared by Uri Dadush of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, was criticized at this meeting for not being pessimistic enough.
The baseline scenario offered by Dadush was that America would avoid economic icebergs and stabilize its deficit and debt problems. The U.S. economy would grow an average of 2.7 percent annually between 2010 and 2030, and the country’s share of G-20 GDP would decline from about a third to about a quarter.
Dadush offered a second, bleaker picture, where breakup of the eurozone triggers a huge financial crisis that spreads to the U.S. After several years of deep recession, the U.S. begins to expand, but anemically. Under this forecast, U.S. growth would average just 1.5 percent through 2030. “Seen as a country on the downslide, the United States is both incapable of leading and disinclined to lead,” wrote Dadush about the more negative version.
A disturbing consensus emerged among the analysts that something closer to the pessimistic scenario should be the baseline. Fred Kempe, the president of the Atlantic Council, the think tank that hosted the meeting, sums up the views of these analysts and of a similar exercise last month by the World Economic Forum when he warns that the biggest national-security threat is “the danger of receding American influence on the world stage.”
My own view (I was asked to critique the presentations as an independent journalist) is that the key issue is how the United States adapts to adversity. That offers a slightly more encouraging picture: Relative to competitors, America still has a more adaptive financial system, stronger global corporations, a culture that can tap the talents of a diverse population, and an unmatched military. The nation’s chronic weakness is its political system, which is nearing dysfunction. If the U.S. can elect better political leadership, it should be able to manage problems better than most competitors.
Here’s the most interesting footnote to this gloomy exercise. Burrows said that as he discusses his 2030 project with analysts around the world, he finds them much less downbeat about America’s prospects. “The Chinese are the first ones to say that we are too pessimistic about our future,” he reports, and Brazilian and Turkish analysts have said much the same thing.
Burrows noted that the nonpartisan report will be released after the 2012 presidential election. But the issue of America’s future will surely be at the heart of the coming campaign.
Please walk with me, as we explore the genesis and the reasons of design that are as foreign to this nation as the dementia of the ideologies of both communism, and islamism.
Why do we not seem shocked by any statement of the U.S. Intelligence community is but an oxymoron?
Does it take a cynic, or just someone who can see the world as it is? Without any prejudice of objective when other presents us a world from their myopic “irrational” prospective, that is void of the light of “reality”. What is the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and why are they funded, to what objective? Who is this Uri Dadush, and why would I even look him up to find out who he is? Well one has too only because the media of this nation is so patronizing that they would print an article—that is void of any positive nature—but a piece of propaganda that could only be identified as the mantra of those who wish to destroy this nation; the “cultural communist” aka “Democratic Party in this nation.
First, think of these words—Carnegie Endowment for International Peace—who is this…and what “ideology” would such an organization believe is the answer? Is it the same as what we have elected in this nation; one who believe in the nihilism of our form of government, our religion, and our culture—to supplant our nation of liberty and freedom with some “illusion” of utopia, never successful of “cultural communism”?
What is international peace anyway? In a world where over 2/3rds of all mankind is under some rule of the “gun” the ideology of socialism—we talk of international peace? How can we even have the discussion when there are ideologies of the dementia where their goal is “submit and obey” where do we find this peace? Or are the concepts of individual liberty, and the preservation of freedom not peace? If not what is?
We find that Uri Daduch is not of our concept of either fiscal policy, or even our concept or role of government. One who is from France—an elitist—from academia, who had never in his life ever made a product, priced a product, sold a product, or even interacted with the realities of true economics, the micro sense. Instead he is one who has lived as a parasite off the efforts of others, in some bureaucratic environment, World Bank, or some equally incompetent fantasyland of “macro—pseudo—economics” lacking reality. Where the hallucinations of Keynes are accepted as fact—where most who study Keynes agree with gun licensing, to remove the opportunity to shoot oneself when attempting to read through the diametric dribble of irrationality of government fiscal and monetary policy.
We are then to believe anything offered by Fred Kempe? Excuse me, the same Fred Kempe who is from “Columbia University”, the same university those of the “Frankfort School of “Cultural Communism” immigrated to when kicked out of Germany. That Columbia and we are to give him credence? Though who wouldn’t be impressed that he reached the correct conclusion…“he warns that the biggest national-security threat is “the danger of receding American influence on the world stage.”” Though would not any American reject his reasoning?
“Relative to competitors, America still has a more adaptive financial system, stronger global corporations, a culture that can tap the talents of a diverse population, and an unmatched military. The nation’s chronic weakness is its political system, which is nearing dysfunction. If the U.S. can elect better political leadership, it should be able to manage problems better than most competitors.”
Read that once more. Can anyone not believe that if we continue the path we are on—which is easy to currently identify—nihilism? That we are not going to preserve, or if we do, we will not be the nation of who we were designed?
Think of this reasoning presented; America has more adaptive financial system. Who with just but the most vague of fiscal knowledge can’t identify that it is our “macro-economic-Keynesian” is not only our fiscal policy but our monetary policy that hasen’t led to the absolute destructive scenario we are now facing?
Here is a clue, there is only one thing that the government, or those who are involved with the monetary policy of any nation should be—maintain the value of currency relative to time. This isn’t some hypothesis, some illusion, some abstract lacking empirical evaluation…it is the facts that have proven to work, whenever the system works. It is as constant as the ideology of “government” fiscal policy and central planning—with a 100% record of failure—when advocated.
Who in this nation—who is not a “cultural communist” determined to destroy this nation could even contemplate such a statement as this; “a culture that can tap the talents of a diverse population”. America has two aspects of history. We have this nation’s history, which is based on our foundation of English law, and governance, with the moral code of Christianity. Also the history of “literacy” of mankind that identifies the total population of man throughout the time it has been recorded. Now in both of these cases we find that “diversity” added what to each set of history? It is a simple answer—nothing. In fact we find the exact opposite that has example after example of those from different races, from different societies, and even those who have foundation of a different concept of religion do what—they flourish in this nation in our culture, with acceptance. The catalyst of creativity exists because of our economic environment, capitalism, where personal reward and ownership of private property creates, and nurtures those who strive to achieve are able to achieve. It is our culture, that liberty of thought, that freedom from government that creates our wonder. Not the intrusion or the retardation of our economic engine by the constraints of central planning, and cultural communism. This statement is a perfect example of the speech of a critical theorist—one who makes statements lacking even empirical fact, lies up on lies, used to advocate a position that is indefensible. It reminds me, everyone should get a copy of the “progressive” speech owe-Bama gave as his Roosevelt speech. It will be the one statement that will preserve in our nation’s history no matter our fate. For it was one lie after another, there was not one verifiable statement, one thing presented that in history can be even identified and the perfect example of what a “critical theorist” says. Interesting that in this nation, so few know our history, or the world’s history that one can stand in front of them, completely patronize them as idiotic, and tell them lies bold face knowing that even those who call themselves journalist will not challenge, for they are also illiterate.
So should we conclude the following; “The nation’s chronic weakness is its political system, which is nearing dysfunction”. Is there any greater statement that could magnify the absolute lack of understanding these who are writing this article know nothing of our form of government?
If the statement would have read; this nation’s fear is that with the exponential veer from the design of our “representative republican form of government”, we are reaching dysfunction. Then the article would have been correct.
The rest of the world is optimistic; for they are experiencing the wonder of what this nation is destroying. Wherefore in their economy the free choice of the people to develop the environment of individual initiative, is allowing a freedom never known. They are finding that concepts such as liberty, and freedom are not some illusions, but concepts of reality, and that there is a greater purpose of mankind than to be a puppet of those who would enslave us.