I worry that Samuel J may be hanging out with too many of these American foreign service types he has been associating with. As he noted in the comments on a previous thread:
Most of the US foreign service strongly support Obama – they have been spreading horror stories about a likely Romney administration.
That’s extraordinary if true. And if that’s the case, there will need to be a wholesale cleanout of the lot. Washington house prices hopefully are about to fall to levels similar to prices in Detroit. But if we are talking about protectionism as the great bogey of a Romney administration, let me guide you to Romney’s No Apology.
The only successful way to overcome foreign advantage, however, is to create an advantage of your own – to innovate. And if you conclude that your competitor’s advantage is permanent and insurmoutable, the best course is to choose new paths and new products. Over the centuries, the siren songs of protectionism and isolationism have taken down some very impressive empires. (paperback edition: page 55)
Translation: Romney is opposed to protectionism. I might also mention the paragraph that follows since it also provides some insight into a Romney administration:
Some of these failed powers were weakened as well by wealth and spending that exceeded their own production – in other words, by easy money. The spoils of Ottoman pillage, the gold the Spanish stole from the Americas, and the tribute the Portuguese exacted from trade – all allowed each of these nations to live well in excess of their productivity. In the same way that inherited wealth can lead descendents to profligate spending and economic ruin, easy money weakened these nations’ willingness to work and invest.
I work under the assumption that most of those who visit this site – and write on this blog – want Romney to win and Obama to lose. I have no reason to think this is untrue but I should also recognise that it may not be universally so although so far as we on the blogging side are concerned, I am pretty sure we are all of one mind. Romney is no protectionist, but if you are determined to find some reason not to vote for him that will do as well as anything else.
I want Obama to lose. A Romney win in the achievement of that end may be a small price to pay.
Lets not delude ourselves into thinking that Romney is a free market evangelist. This is a libertarian and centre-right blog. I’m yet to be convinced Romney is either of those things. What I am sure of is that Obama isn’t and never will be!
So you actually think there is a difference between Obama and Romney? HAHAHAhahaha…..aw good one! Bush Jr and Obama may as well have been born “policy twins” cos nothing much changed!
You can bet the lefties have the “vote for independent” campaign is in full force to divert anger at the Sun King.
The problem is too many people remember what Nader did to Gore in 2000. They’ll have to wait a few more years before that old trick will work again.
Lysander – one word “Keystone”
True, Romney is opposed to protectionism and is the best option the world has to avoid the catastrophe of a US tailspinning into ineffectualness. But all his talk about Chinese currency manipulation and retaliation against it is worrisome. So is the apparent inability of policy makers to realaise that US and other rich countries’ deficits are financed by Chinese savings and if the Chinese current account surplus is strangled, people in the US and elsewhere will need to reduce their consumption
I relish the opportunity to not vote for either of them. It’s too easy to get wrapped up in the tedious squabbles of Australian party politics; US politics provides us with a pleasant opportunity to sit back, relax, and observe the contest between right and left from a distance.
So Samuel J prefers Obama to Romney
I’ll just pretend I didn’t read that.
Why else would he want to declare China a currency manipulator (and he’s been pushing that line pretty hard) except to be able to impose tariffs and other protectionist schemes against them?
“Romney is opposed to protectionism. … Romney is no protectionist”
Overall, I agree. The China-bashing is just populism, he’s unlikely to go hard once in office. His protectionist comments have worried some people, though.
http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/30/romney-has-the-edge-in-the-bipartisan-pr
I don’t understand why people schooled in politics of a middle power (Australia) don’t have the mental agility to understand the rules of the game for the super powers are different.
You don’t get leverage by yielding to your opponent’s demands up front.
Anyone who reads about how the left in the US ensured the US got creamed in the Paris Peace agreements when negotiating with Vietnam would understand the US (especially the Republicans) will never make the mistake again.
For more information read about Reagan’s masterful negotiations with the Soviets & Iran in the 1980′s.
___________________
BTW, John Hinderaker discusses the campaign strategies of the Obama & Romney team and notes that the wasteful spending across the summer:
Really? Where does he say that?
Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!
ipso facto, Samuel J is advocating for Obama
Adrian, that does not imply preference.
Yeah, Steve that’s really not what Samuel J said in his blog post at all.
You are becoming way too emotionally involved in this to the point where you are unable to exercise any semblance of logic or reasoning.
It’s getting a touch pathetic. I personally want Romney to win, but not to the point where it compromises my reading comprehension…
Poidar
That’s how I feel too.
The one point I’m deeply worried about with Romney is the appointment of the next Fed Chairman. It worries me that he will appoint a hard currency man to the chair and the prospect of NGDP targeting is eliminated. Sumner however thinks that Mitt will in fact appoint someone with similar views to Uncle Ben. Let’s all hope so as we could have a serious depression on our hands.
It’s hard to know if Romney’s China bashing is just populism or in fact shows a tendency to protectionism. But this from mittromney.com should be of concern:
Arming Taiwan?
Romney/Ryan are serious about cutting government spending to avoid what they call the ‘fical cliff’. That issue, which is central to the Romney platform, is not even on Obama’s policy radar. This is a pretty huge policy difference between the two sides.
As for protectionism, Romney talks tough on China in terms of currency manipulation but is not advocating tariffs or other forms of protectionism as it’s commonly understood.
WTF are you talking about?
The US has been providing arms to Taiwan since the ’50s. If the US decides to yield to the Chinese on equipment sales to Taiwan, they will be betraying long term allies from Japan through to the Phillipines.
“Most of the US foreign service strongly support Obama – they have been spreading horror stories about a likely Romney administration.”
Well, that’s certainly counter-intuitive.
Why would essentially unskilled humanities majors who are presently employed by government at overly generous levels of pay react with horror to someone who would like to decrease the number of those same employees?
Huh. Go figure.
tgs:
>You [Steve Kates] are becoming way too emotionally involved in this to the point where you are unable to exercise any semblance of logic or reasoning. It’s getting a touch pathetic…
As I have been saying for the last year or so.
Obama’s second term will convert the USA into a Socialist command and control economy. The second term will also potentially end Western civilization. We also have what I have dubbed Kates’ “AlinSkynet” theory: that the US media is a conscious, self-organising agent not only intent on bringing this future Socialist state about, but capable of detecting The One Man who can stop it – even in the primaries! – and moving to eliminate him.
It’s just getting embarrassing.
I do not prefer Obama to Romney. I have never said that.
No Steve. Most people who visit this site, me included, want Obama to lose. That doesn’t mean most people want Romney to win.
I want Romney to win.
It looks like the Obama administration had some direct influence on causing the most recent Muslim riots in Sydney. The riots happened because the video been elevated to a global cause celebre by officials attempting to cover up their negligence, and exposing their ambassador to murder.
Ah yes – the problem with democracy. They can’t all lose at the same time.
That’s just stupid.
No other more apt adjective.
It is a binary choice.
A vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Obama.
It really isn’t difficult for those with IQs 80 and above unless blinkered by emotionalism.
SamuelJ – This is a two horse race less than a week from the finish line. To want Obama to lose means you must want Romney to win. I don’t wish to be ultra metaphysical here and dwell on the meaning of “to want” in some Clintonesque way. Spoiling your ballot – who would you write in and how would it matter? – means one less vote for Romney when every vote in a swing state will count. I concede that a write-in vote in a sense is also one less vote for Obama. But that is the same as not voting so it is a plague on both your houses. Every one of the candidates who nominated on the Republican side, including the non-politician Herman Cain, would be preferable to Obama. Had they been nominated I would have wanted them to win, although Romney is far and away my first choice.
I want Obama to lose. He does not deserve a second term. As a result I prefer a Romney victory, but not because I think much of Romney’s policies.
It’s not a matter of whether Obama “deserves a second term” or not.
It’s the definite end of the post WW2 Pax Americana or a determination (and ability) to return to the US Federal government of 20% of GDP size and a plan to have sustainable GDP growth of 4%+ over the next decade without devaluing the currency.
An mutterings about protectionism is low rent garbage.
I doubted Romney, until I read No Apologies, now I’d be happy for him to win. Saying that I’d be happy for a festering pile of shit to beat Obama (I know, I know its the same thing………).
JamesK – I sincerely doubt that Romney will make any significant inroads into reducing the size of government. I hope I’m right, but the size of the US Administration has increased under just about every president.
:
I expect you mean “I hope I’m wrong”
He has to.
No federal government has raised more than 19-20% of GDP as revenue.
He actually has no choice but to succeed; the debt is well in excess of 100% of GDP and there are unfunded liabilities of $70 trillion in the next 20 years for Medicare and Social Security alone.
Ryan and Romney have identified these as the problem.
And Ryan signed on.
Obama has not – he is clearly going down the default route initially by devaluing the currency.
As a libertarian commenting on a libertarian blog, I want Gary Johnson to win. I couldn’t care less who wins out of Romney or Obama.
The #1 challenge facing the United States is the war on drugs. Only Gary Johnson would stop it.
James – yes sorry I hope I’m wrong!
Sez all you need to know about Yobbo’s woeful intellectual capacity and seriousness.
This is a distinction without a difference.
He’s nearly right. if not for the fiscal cliff he’d be bang on. The war on drugs is a massive waste of resources and unjustifiable.
Releasing half of the US prison population and allowing them to work might do wonders for the fiscal cliff.
The #1 challenge facing the United States is the war on drugs. Only Gary Johnson would stop it.
Yeah, by waving the fucking white flag.
The #1 challenge facing the United States is its current administration, which must be defeated in an electoral wipeout if its successor is not to be paralysed by vexatious legal challenges and four to eight years of counter-claims, protests and cries of illegitimacy.
For this reason and for this reason alone, if Americans want Obama definitively removed, they MUST support Romney. Or do you want a repeat of 2000, with all the discord that would involve, multiplied by the “racism” factor that unseating Obama would bring? It’s a similar reason to why Abbott needs to totally annihilate Gillard at the next Australian federal election, although the structure of government and the compulsory 2PP system mean that whoever doesn’t vote for one side ends up voting for the other anyway (assuming the Greens stay fused at the hip until they or the ALP are obliterated).
Fighting an endless war you can never win to stop something that’s not nearly as bad as the war itself is the height of idiocy.
Yobbo,
An analysis sometime ago found that the USA had the more draconian drug laws and the biggest illicit drug problem. Strange thing is that the USA also has a huge psychoactive prescription drug problem and is by far the biggest consumer of those drugs. A CATO study on Portugal found that years after widespread decriminalisation drug use had actually declined and more people were seeking treatment.
Psychologically the USA is a very strange place to get one’s head around. It is probably inadvisable to even try.
Yes, but it’s not realistic.
Vote 1 Ralph Nader!
News! USA runs out of antidepressants and antipsychotics, the nation is ruined.
Jesus Christ man! Do you call legal alcohol waving the white flag? Do you support the wine super tax?