New York Times Editorial, "China’s Missile Provocation": Obama's Missile Dereliction

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "China’s Missile Provocation," The New York Times says of China's decision to install two HQ-9 short-range missile batteries on Woody Island:

"China’s decision to station surface-to-air missiles on a disputed island in the South China Sea is the latest in a series of provocative acts that is fueling regional tensions. This unwise move raises new doubts about President Xi Jinping’s pledge not to 'pursue militarization' in a vital waterway and passage for $5 trillion in annual trade.

. . . .

The United States makes no claim to territory in the South China Sea and takes a neutral position on the competing claims [of China, Vietnam and Taiwan]. It has rightly pushed all countries, especially China, to stop militarizing land masses and adding to them. It has also promised to recognize the claims of whichever side wins the arbitration case.

Regardless of that outcome, it is essential for the United States, working with its allies, to ensure the free flow of navigation and to continue sending ships and planes across the sea, in accord with international law."

Fascinating. You will recall that Obama called Chinese President Xi earlier this month in the hope that Xi would curb North Korea's nuclear and rocket testing. Xi is going to pressure North Korea? Don't count on it. As reported by Javier C. Hernandez in a January 15, 2016 Times article entitled "After Nuclear Test, China Resists Pressure to Curb North Korea":

"Since coming to power in 2012, Mr. Xi has pushed the limits of Chinese foreign policy, challenging America’s influence in the Pacific and using China’s financial heft to win allies across the globe. But while Mr. Xi has taken a tougher approach than his predecessors on North Korea, he has resisted inflicting crippling punishments on the North, an ally for six decades and a valuable counterweight for Beijing to American military might in Asia."

Xi of course partnered with Obama in reaching the unsigned nuclear agreement with Iran. And you will also remember how, in a January 17, 2016 editorial entitled "A Safer World, Thanks to the Iran Deal," The New York Times sang paeans to Obama's "visionary determination," which led to his unsigned nuclear deal with Khamenei. This editorial was written one day after Obama lifted sanctions stemming from Iran's nuclear program, yet on the same day that Obama imposed sanctions on 11 persons and companies tied to recent Iranian ballistic missile tests. A confused chickenhearted message to Tehran? You bet! Will Iran halt its ballistic missile program as a result of sanctioning 11 persons and companies? Not a chance.

In fact, as reported today in a Times of Israel article entitled "Pending Iranian Space Launch Contrary to U.N. Nuclear Resolution" by Bill Gertz:

"Iran is expected to conduct a rocket test this month in violation of the recent UN resolution on the Iranian nuclear deal that bans long-range missile tests, according to U.S. intelligence officials.

Intelligence agencies are closely watching preparations in Iran to test a Simorgh space launch vehicle that U.S. officials say is the base for Tehran’s covert program to develop long-range nuclear missiles.

The large liquid-fueled rocket was developed with North Korean technology and was observed on a launch pad at the Semnan satellite launch center, located about 125 miles east of Tehran.

UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which outlines implementation of the recent Iranian nuclear agreement, prohibits Iran from conducting nuclear ballistic missile tests for the next eight years."

Obama will act decisively to prevent the launch? Again, not a chance. He will hand it over the UN, whose member states are only interested in cementing commercial agreements with Tehran, after the recent release of more than $100 billion of Iranian frozen assets.

Which brings me to yesterday's US Government Accountability Office assessment of the Missile Defense Agency's development of a ballistic missile defense system (BMDS) to defend against attacks from North Korea and Iran. The GAO writes (my emphasis in red):

"MDA Has Not Demonstrated Through Flight Testing That It Can Defend the U.S. Homeland Against the Current Missile Defense Threat

DOD’s August 2015 report stated that the BMDS is capable of defending the U.S. homeland against the threat of a limited intercontinental ballistic missile attack from countries such as North Korea and Iran. According to recent testimony from senior DOD officials, the warfighter remains confident in its ability to protect the nation from a limited intercontinental ballistic missile attack. However, several key aspects of this capability have not been demonstrated through flight testing. In May 2015, we reported that MDA previously conducted three successful CE-I intercept flight tests and achieved a major milestone when it performed its first successful intercept test with the CE-II, the first of several needed successful intercept tests to fully demonstrate the CE-II works as intended. Some of the capabilities that both MDA and the warfighter have identified that need to be demonstrated include intercepting a target representative of an intercontinental ballistic missile and performing a salvo intercept where two or more interceptors are utilized against a single target. The salvo capability is particularly important because, during a ballistic missile attack, the warfighter intends to launch a salvo of interceptors to increase the probability of successfully intercepting the incoming missiles and to overcome anticipated in-flight reliability failures.

According to a March 2015 assessment by DOD’s Office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), GMD has demonstrated a partial capability against small numbers of simple ballistic missile threats launched from North Korea and Iran; GMD flight testing, to date, was insufficient to demonstrate that an operationally useful defense capability exists; and a quantitative assessment of GMD’s operational effectiveness is currently not possible."

Or stated otherwise, an effective American BMDS is years and billions of dollars away after Obama, intent upon avoiding confrontation, allowed North Korea and Iran to perfect their ballistic missile capabilities. Yikes!

Ban Ki-moon, "Don’t Shoot the Messenger, Israel": Ignorance Is Bliss for This Messenger

Tweet

In a guest op-ed entitled "Don’t Shoot the Messenger, Israel," Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon begins by asserting, "History proves that people will always resist occupation." But if that's the case, why isn't Ban Ki-moon raising his voice against China, which has occupied Tibet for the past 65 years? Needless to say, unlike the Palestinians who overwhelmingly reject Israel's right to exist, Tibetans have never denied China's right to exist. But I digress.

Ban Ki-moon declares in his opinion piece:

"Israeli settlements keep expanding. The government has approved plans for over 150 new homes in illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. Last month, 370 acres in the West Bank were declared 'state land,' a status that typically leads to exclusive Israeli settler use."

My goodness, 150 new homes! However, Ban Ki-moon forgets to mention that Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat has acknowledged, as was reported in a Haaretz article entitled "Erekat: Olmert Offered Palestinians Territorial Equivalent of West Bank" by Jack Khoury, that Israeli settlements have been built on only "approximately 1.1% of the West Bank." In addition, Khoury wrote that former "Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had offered a final peace settlement that would include territorial concession equivalent to the entire West Bank, the return of thousands of Palestinian refugees into the West Bank, and the division of Jerusalem." Palestinian Authority President Abbas, now in the twelfth year of a four-year term of office, rejected Olmert's proposal. Can you imagine? The chutzpah of those nasty Israelis!

Moreover, every peace proposal considered by the Israelis and the Palestinians has included land swaps, but Ban Ki-moon fails to indicate whether those 150 homes will be built on land that the Palestinians have agreed will be passed over to Israel as part of a future land swap.

I have often expressed my desire to see a prosperous, democratic Palestine living side-by-side with Israel in peace. On the other hand, there can also be no ignoring the refusal of Palestinians to accept Israel's right to exist. It is also hard to ignore that 24 percent of Palestinians support the Islamic State - more than anyplace else in the world. Where does that ultimately lead?

Ban Ki-moon concludes, "The status quo is untenable." However, as observed by Palestinian Authority President Abbas in a 2009 interview with Jackson Diehl:

"'I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements,' he said. 'Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life.'"

This statement was made after Abbas refused Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's 2008 peace offer. So who is responsible for the perpetuation of the status quo? Ban Ki-moon has yet to figure it out.

Paul Krugman, "When China Stumbles": No Plan B in Sight

Tweet

Observing in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "When China Stumbles" that the global implications of China's economic problems are "really scary," and noting that George Soros is comparing the situation to 2008, Paul Krugman nevertheless does not believe that a "catastrophe" is imminent. Krugman writes:

"China is a big economy, accounting in particular for about a quarter of world manufacturing, so what happens there has implications for all of us. And China buys more than $2 trillion worth of goods and services from the rest of the world each year. But it’s a big world, with a total gross domestic product excluding China of more than $60 trillion. Even a drastic fall in Chinese imports would be only a modest hit to world spending."

However, hedging his bet, Krugman also makes reference to "psychological contagion: Good or bad news in one major economy affects animal spirits in others." Expanding on this worst case scenario, Krugman concludes:

"And while fiscal policy — essentially, spending more to offset the effects of China spending less — would surely work, how many people believe that Republicans would be receptive to a new Obama stimulus plan, or that German politicians would look kindly on a proposal for bigger deficits in Europe?

Now, my best guess is still that things won’t be that bad — nasty in China, but just a bit of turbulence elsewhere. And I really, really hope that guess is right, because we don’t seem to have a plan B anywhere in sight."

Question for Paul: How do you write an opinion piece concerning Chinese economic woes and the effect they could have on the US without making reference to the fact that the US is in debt to China to the tune of $1.4 trillion. And although China, for the first time since 2001, is reducing its exposure to American debt, this has been counterbalanced by American mutual funds buying record amounts of Treasuries. However the question arises whether domestic demand could be overwhelmed by a Chinese fire sale of US debt, particularly if Obama were to announce a new stimulus plan, adding to America's unsustainable national debt now totaling some $19 trillion.

Short-term, I agree with Krugman: the concern over China is overblown. Long-term, unless American debt is reined in by the next administration, look out below!

David Brooks, "The Green Tech Solution": Ignoring the Elephant in the Room (Not the Republicans)

Tweet

"And next week, I will be joining President Hollande and world leaders in Paris for the global climate conference. What a powerful rebuke to the terrorists it will be when the world stands as one and shows that we will not be deterred from building a better future for our children."

- President Obama, East Room of White House, November 24, 2015

A powerful rebuke to ISIS? The "gentlemen" of this terrorist organization give thought to the carbon footprint they leave when they sever heads and hang bodies out to dry on crucifixes? Sorry, but I am beginning to believe that America's president has grown delusional. Moreover, if he was truly serious about global warming, he should have insisted that all of the world's leaders arrive in Paris via commercial jet liners, or better yet, participate by way of conference call.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Green Tech Solution," David Brooks discusses with his hero Alexander Hamilton (no, Brooks is not delusional) "how the world should move forward to ameliorate climate change." Brooks writes:

"This week’s Paris conference, I observed, seems like a giant Weight Watchers meeting. A bunch of national leaders get together and make some resolutions to cut their carbon emissions over the next few decades. You hope some sort of peer pressure will kick in and they will actually follow through.

I’m afraid Hamilton snorted.

The co-author of the Federalist papers is the opposite of naïve about human nature. He said the conference is nothing like a Weight Watchers meeting. Unlike weight loss, the pain in reducing carbon emissions is individual but the good is only achieved collectively."

Ah yes, the "good" (as opposed to the "bad" and the "ugly") is only achieved collectively.

But more to the point, aren't Brooks and Obama paying insufficient attention to the elephant in the room (and I'm not referring to the Republicans)? As we learn from a March 14, 2015 Economist article entitled "Made in China?":

"BY MAKING things and selling them to foreigners, China has transformed itself—and the world economy with it. In 1990 it produced less than 3% of global manufacturing output by value; its share now is nearly a quarter. China produces about 80% of the world’s air-conditioners, 70% of its mobile phones and 60% of its shoes. The white heat of China’s ascent has forged supply chains that reach deep into South-East Asia. This 'Factory Asia' now makes almost half the world’s goods."

China's efforts to stop global warming? Brooks cites in his opinion piece a September 24, 2015 New York Times article by Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Coral Davenport entitled "China to Announce Cap-and-Trade Program to Limit Emissions":

"President Xi Jinping of China will make a landmark commitment on Friday to start a national program in 2017 that will limit and put a price on greenhouse gas emissions, Obama administration officials said Thursday.

The move to create a so-called cap-and-trade system would be a substantial step by the world’s largest polluter to reduce emissions from major industries, including steel, cement, paper and electric power."

However, as reported in a June 30, 2015 Guardian article by Jennifer Duggan entitled "China makes carbon pledge ahead of Paris climate change summit":

"China will aim to cut its greenhouse gas emissions per unit of gross domestic product by 60-65% from 2005 levels under a plan submitted to the United Nations ahead of crucial climate change talks in Paris later this year.

The pledge has been eagerly awaited as the country is the world’s largest carbon emitter.

China said it would increase the share of non-fossil fuels as part of its primary energy consumption to about 20% by 2030, and peak emissions by around the same point, though it would 'work hard' to do so earlier."

China will "work hard" to reduce carbon emissions by 2030 (Will I live to see the day?), or, is China again blowing noxious smoke up our collective arses? Yup, I'm certain this statement of intentions preceding the Paris conference had those f*ckers from ISIS feeling thoroughly "rebuked" . . . not.

Paul Krugman, "Debt Is Good": In for a Penny, in for a Pound!

Tweet

US national debt is fast approaching an unsustainable $18.3 trillion, amounting to more than $57,000 for every American man, woman and child. This compares with some $30,000 for every man, woman and child in America in June 2008, which, at the time, elicited presidential candidate Obama's declaration:

"That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic."

Well, $57,000 per American is not good enough for Paul Krugman, who, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Debt Is Good," would have us know:

"Believe it or not, many economists argue that the economy needs a sufficient amount of public debt out there to function well. And how much is sufficient? Maybe more than we currently have. That is, there’s a reasonable argument to be made that part of what ails the world economy right now is that governments aren’t deep enough in debt.

. . . .

One answer is that issuing debt is a way to pay for useful things, and we should do more of that when the price is right. The United States suffers from obvious deficiencies in roads, rails, water systems and more; meanwhile, the federal government can borrow at historically low interest rates. So this is a very good time to be borrowing and investing in the future, and a very bad time for what has actually happened: an unprecedented decline in public construction spending adjusted for population growth and inflation."

From whom should the United States be borrowing? More money should be borrowed from China, which is currently mired in its own set of economic problems? As reported by Reuters in an article entitled "Sharp China factory slowdown in August raises global growth fears" by Koh Gui Qing:

"Following three decades of blistering double-digit economic growth, Chinese authorities have had limited success in shoring up activity this year despite four interest rates cuts since November.

Worse, last week's shock 2 percent devaluation in the yuan and a near-collapse in Chinese shares over the summer that was countered by a massive stock market rescue do not appear to have calmed investor jitters.

The yuan has slid nearly 3 percent since its Aug. 11 devaluation, a fall that some analysts say is too modest to boost Chinese exports, but notable enough to raise fears of competitive currency devaluations between governments."

And while China is busy devaluing the yuan, the Federal Reserve might soon be raising interest rates in the US, i.e. a paradox which is certain to further increase the outrageous trade imbalance between China and the US.

More debt? I don't think so, unless someone is truly intent upon doubling down on a bad bet at the economic roulette wheel.

David Brooks, "The Robert E. Lee Problem": What About Modern-Day Slavery in India, Pakistan, China, Saudi Arabia and Qatar?

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Robert E. Lee Problem," David Brooks tackles the recent debate in the US concerning "the Confederate battle flag and other symbols of the Confederacy." Brooks writes:

"Lowering the Confederate flag from public properties is thus an easy call. There are plenty of ways to celebrate Southern heritage and Southern life without choosing one so enmeshed in the fight to preserve slavery."

Specifically regarding Confederate General Robert E. Lee, Brooks concludes:

"My own view is that we should preserve most Confederate memorials out of respect for the common soldiers. We should keep Lee’s name on institutions that reflect postwar service, like Washington and Lee University, where he was president. But we should remove Lee’s name from most schools, roads and other institutions, where the name could be seen as acceptance of what he did and stood for during the war.

This is not about rewriting history. It’s about shaping the culture going forward."

Okay, I agree with David concerning symbols of the Confederacy and Lee, but indeed, what "about shaping the culture going forward"? You see, slavery still exists today.

There are 14 million adults and children who live today in slavery in India, and more than 2 million Pakistanis who are enslaved. There are also 2.9 million people living in slavery in China.

There are also thousands of forced laborers in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and the list continues.

Yes, the Confederate battle flag should not be flown on South Carolina's Capitol grounds, but what about the 30 million people who still live in bondage, manufacturing our clothes, sporting goods and electronic equipment? Don't they also deserve our attention?

Thomas Friedman, "Cold War Without the Fun": The World Stands in Awe of America's Big Wallet?

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Cold War Without the Fun," Thomas Friedman concludes:

"In short, the attraction of the U.S. economy and the bite of U.S. sanctions are more vital than ever in managing the post-post-Cold War game of nations, including bringing Iran to nuclear talks. We may be back to traditional geopolitics, but it’s in a much more interdependent world, where our economic clout is still a source of restraint on Moscow and Beijing. Putin doesn’t disguise his military involvement in Ukraine for nothing; he’s afraid of more U.S. banking sanctions. China doesn’t circumscribe its behavior in the South China Sea for nothing; it can’t grow without exporting to America. It’s not just our guns; it’s our butter. It’s why we should be expanding U.S.-shaped free-trade deals with Asia and Europe, and it’s why the most important source of stability in the world today is the health of the U.S. economy. We can walk softly only as long as we carry a big stick — and a big wallet."

Yes, Supreme Leader Khamenei is frightened to death of America's "big wallet," as evidenced by his demands for further concessions from Obama, even as the nuclear deal being contemplated by the US and its P5+1 partners only extends Iran's atomic bomb breakout time from two months to three months.

And as regards that "big wallet," US national debt now stands at an unsustainable $18.3 trillion. My guess is that China, which holds about eight percent of US national debt, is growing more worried about an ultimate default by the American government and less worried about the sale of goods manufactured by slave labor to American consumers.

Thomas Friedman, "What’s Up With You?": Tom's Truth About China Will Set You Free

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "What’s Up With You?," Thomas Friedman would explain to us America's relationship with China:

"But here’s the truth: the American and Chinese economies and futures today are now totally intertwined, so much so that they are the real 'one country-two systems' to watch.

. . . .

Both countries almost take for granted the ties that bind them today: the $600 billion in annual bilateral trade; the 275,000 Chinese studying in America, and the 25,000 Americans studying in China; the fact that China is now America’s largest agricultural market and the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt; and the fact that last year Chinese investment in the United States for the first time exceeded American investment in China."

Ah yes, the "truth." Friedman could have also mentioned that the prison population in the US is the highest in the world, with second place going to China. On the other hand, the US doesn't even come near China's world-leading number of executions per annum. (Iran under its "moderate" president Hassan Rouhnai is executing people, including homosexuals and women accused of adultery, at a record pace and coming up fast in this category.)

Observing a trend toward innovation in China, Friedman writes of Chinese President Xi:

"Xi has begun a huge push for 'innovation,' for transforming China’s economy from manufacturing and assembly to more knowledge-intensive work, so this one-child generation will be able to afford to take care of two retiring parents in a country with an inadequate social-safety net.

. . . .

President Xi seems to be betting that China is big enough and smart enough to curb the Internet and political speech just enough to prevent dissent but not enough to choke off innovation. This is the biggest bet in the world today. And if he’s wrong (and color me dubious) we’re all going to feel it."

"We're all going to feel it"? Especially if American is forced to pay back its $1.3 trillion debt to China anytime soon.

Meanwhile, if China is successful in its push for innovation, one can only wonder what it will do with it 3 million slave laborers. (No mention of slave labor in Tom's opinion piece.)

"One country-two systems"? "Two systems" without a doubt, but "one country" is more than I can stomach.

Michael Gerson, "A half-baked missive from the GOP": The US Must Negotiate With Iran in "Good Faith"? Yeah, Right!

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "A half-baked missive from the GOP," Michael Gerson, who is on record as predicting that Obama's negotiations with Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei could result in a "bad deal," is now upbraiding Senate Republicans for signing Tom Cotton's open letter to Iran. Gerson writes:

"A final objection to the Cotton letter concerns not institutional positioning but grand strategy. The alternative to a bad nuclear deal is not war; it is strong sanctions and covert actions to limit Iranian capacities until the regime falls (as it came close to doing in 2009) or demonstrates behavior change in a variety of areas. But this approach depends on the tightening of sanctions in cooperation with Europe, as well as Russia and China. And this effort can be held together only by the impression that the United States has negotiated with Iran in good faith. So negotiations are actually an important part of any attempt to isolate Iran. The key is where we draw our 'red lines.'"

"The alternative to a bad nuclear deal is not war"? Correct. However, Obama is seeking willy-nilly to reach such a deal, and the likelihood of strong sanctions ever being reinstated is close to nil. German companies are champing at the bit to sell goods and service to Iran. Russia is already holding joint naval exercises with Iran, and China is also pursuing a naval alliance with Tehran. In short, the horse is already out of the barn.

"[T]his effort can be held together only by the impression that the United States has negotiated with Iran in good faith"? Be real, Michael! Do you really believe that Putin, busy swallowing Crimea and the eastern part of the Ukraine, and Xi Jinping, who is in a territorial dispute with Japan over the South China Sea, give a damn about "good faith"?

"The key is where we draw our 'red lines'"? Spare me. There are no more red lines. Obama saw to it when he retreated from the red line he drew involving Syrian madman Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons against civilians.

Is Obama negotiating a "bad deal"? No, he is negotiating a "disastrous deal," which will give the mullahs a nuclear arsenal and ICBMs in less than a decade. Scold Republicans for signing Cotton's letter? I don't think so.

Paul Krugman, "Beliefs, Facts and Money": What Krugman Doesn't Tell Us

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Beliefs, Facts and Money" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/07/opinion/paul-krugman-conservative-delusions-about-inflation.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0), Paul Krugman would again have us know that deficit spending, which caused US national debt to rise from $10.6 trillion when Obama took office in January 2009 to its current $17.6 trillion, has not been accompanied by inflation. Krugman writes (my emphasis in red):

"Above all, there were many dire warnings about the evils of 'printing money.' For example, in May 2009 an editorial in The Wall Street Journal warned that both interest rates and inflation were set to surge 'now that Congress and the Federal Reserve have flooded the world with dollars.' In 2010 a virtual Who’s Who of conservative economists and pundits sent an open letter to Ben Bernanke warning that his policies risked 'currency debasement and inflation.' Prominent politicians like Representative Paul Ryan joined the chorus.

Reality, however, declined to cooperate. Although the Fed continued on its expansionary course — its balance sheet has grown to more than $4 trillion, up fivefold since the start of the crisis — inflation stayed low. For the most part, the funds the Fed injected into the economy simply piled up either in bank reserves or in cash holdings by individuals — which was exactly what economists on the other side of the divide had predicted would happen.

Needless to say, it’s not the first time a politically appealing economic doctrine has been proved wrong by events. So those who got it wrong went back to the drawing board, right? Hahahahaha."

Whoa! Yes, there has been a horrific recession limiting demand for goods and services, and inflation has remained low, but what about the other side of the coin? What about currency debasement?

Over the past decade, the US dollar has lost some 20 percent of its value against the Canadian dollar, some 12 percent of its value against the euro, some 29 percent of its value against the Swiss franc, some 6 percent of its value against the Japanese yen, some 24 percent of its value against the new Israeli shekel, and some 25 percent of its value against the Chinese yuan.

What happens when the Chinese decide that their loans to the US are losing too much of their value owing to currency debasement and demand the return of their $1.3 trillion from the US government? Believe me, you don't want to know.

Hahahahaha indeed.

Thomas Friedman, "More Chopsticks, Please": At Least Borat Spoke English

Surely you recall Sacha Baron Cohen's 2006 comedy "Borat," in which Borat Sagdiyev, a fictitious Kazakh journalist, traveled around the US at the behest of the Kazakh Ministry of Information in order to create a documentary film of his experiences. At least Borat spoke English.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "More Chopsticks, Please" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/11/opinion/sunday/friedman-more-chopsticks-please.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Thomas Friedman tells us how his newspaper sent him to Kiev and Hanoi over the past couple of weeks in order to recount his experiences. Does Friedman speak fluent Ukrainian and/or Vietnamese? Probably not. And this could well have contributed to Tom's hilarious observation:

"And in my jet-lagged torpor, all I’ve been trying to do is make sure I don’t order Chicken Kiev in Hanoi and Chicken Spring Rolls in Kiev."

Hahahahaha.

Observing that the Ukraine is being bullied by Russia and that Vietnam is being bullied by China, Friedman concludes:

"We’re not going to go to war on either front. And Russia and China also have claims and interests that bear consideration. But if we are to persuade Moscow and Beijing to resolve these border disputes peacefully, not unilaterally, we’ll clearly need a few more chopsticks in our bundle. Which is why America’s ability to build coalitions is as vital today as the exercise of its own power."

America's ability to build coalitions is vital today? Well, good luck to the Obama administration in forging a coalition to oppose Russia, after America's president alienated both Poland and the Czech Republic by scrapping plans for a missile defense system in both these countries. Instead, Obama promised "flexibility" to Putin.

And good luck to the Obama administration in forging a coalition to oppose China, after America's president refused to take sides in the dispute between China and Japan involving sovereignty over the the Senkaku Islands.

Needless to say, Friedman fails to mention that China is the largest single holder of American debt and is owed some $1.3 trillion by the US government.

But never mind this sobering truth. Just keep bundling those chopsticks.

Hahahahaha.

Yup, almost as funny as the greenhouse gas emissions spewed by the airplanes carrying Friedman around the globe, all in order to allow Tom to spew these gaseous rollicking opinion pieces.

Thomas Friedman, "Dear President of China": Rots of Ruck

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Dear President of China" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/opinion/sunday/friedman-dear-president-of-china.html?hp&rref=opinion), Thomas Friedman pompously writes a "memo" to China’s President Xi Jinping, which he begins by declaring that he is a "A Friend of Your Country." Observing that the American and Chinese "economies and fates are totally intertwined today," Friedman protests a Chinese crackdown on the foreign press. Friedman's conclusion:

"President Xi, for your sake and the sake of stability in China, please don’t make the mistake of blaming the messengers. The Great Chinese Firewall you need to construct can’t be against the truth. It has to be against corruption."

No mention by Friedman that China leads the world in executions.

No mention by Friedman of Chinese slave labor.

No mention of the recent creation by China of a new air defense zone, which nearly provoked fighting with Japan and the US.

And of course no mention by Friedman of China's support for Iran's nuclear weapons development program. As reported earlier this month by Michael Rubin of Commentary (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/12/09/china-spikes-the-ball-in-iran/), Chinese State Councilor (and former foreign minister) Yang Jiechi stated with regard to the recent Geneva "agreement" with the P5+1:

"Iran defended its rights in the [Vienna nuclear] negotiations and defeated the Western side. This result was achieved by Iran’s new government and through wisdom and prudence used in the talks. We respect Iran’s right to nuclear energy and uranium enrichment… Iran has started moving on the path of progress and development with your [Ruhani's] appointment [victory in presidential elections]. And China considers Iran as a close friend and a good and strategic partner."

An absence of freedom of the press in China? Sorry, Tom, that's the least of it.

Paul Krugman, "A Permanent Slump?": America Sells Its Economic Future for a Bowl of Wonton Soup

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "A Permanent Slump?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/18/opinion/krugman-a-permanent-slump.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0), Paul Krugman observes that a growing number of economists believe that "depression-like conditions are on track to persist, not for another year or two, but for decades," and that such opinions have "moved into the mainstream." Krugman provides his own support for this dismal outlook:

"Look at household debt relative to income. That ratio was roughly stable from 1960 to 1985, but rose rapidly and inexorably from 1985 to 2007, when crisis struck. Yet even with households going ever deeper into debt, the economy’s performance over the period as a whole was mediocre at best, and demand showed no sign of running ahead of supply. Looking forward, we obviously can’t go back to the days of ever-rising debt. Yet that means weaker consumer demand — and without that demand, how are we supposed to return to full employment?"

Regrettably, I share this grim view.

As recently reported by the US Commerce Department (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/us-trade-deficit-widens-8-percent-in-september-to-418-billion-highest-in-4-months/2013/11/14/01e7f65c-4d32-11e3-bf60-c1ca136ae14a_story.html), imports increased to their highest level in 10 months in September while exports dropped, notwithstanding an 11.5 percent decline in petroleum imports. Significantly, the deficit with China reached an all-time high of $30.5 billion.

Does the US economy, specifically growth in employment, benefit from consumer demand fueled by easy money? Obviously not.

For there to be more American jobs, the trade imbalance with China needs to rectified.

Paul Krugman, "The Mutilated Economy": We Owe the Money to Ourselves?

Never once mentioning the name of America's president, Paul Krugman, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Mutilated Economy" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/opinion/krugman-the-mutilated-economy.html?_r=0), begins by telling us that the US economy has yet to recover:

"Five years and eleven months have now passed since the U.S. economy entered recession. Officially, that recession ended in the middle of 2009, but nobody would argue that we’ve had anything like a full recovery. Official unemployment remains high, and it would be much higher if so many people hadn’t dropped out of the labor force. Long-term unemployment — the number of people who have been out of work for six months or more — is four times what it was before the recession."

Who, according to Krugman, is responsible for this corrosive unemployment? The "deficit scolds," of course, who have attempted to hold down US government debt, and who have plainly taken leave of their senses. Krugman writes:

"This never made sense even in its own terms. As some of us have tried to explain, debt, while it can pose problems, doesn’t make the nation poorer, because it’s money we owe to ourselves. Anyone who talks about how we’re borrowing from our children just hasn’t done the math."

"It’s money we owe to ourselves"? Oh really? Although approximately a third of federal debt consists of intragovernmental holdings, another third is held by foreign governments, including China (some $1.3 trillion) and Japan (some $1.1 trillion).

Money owed to foreign governments is not money owed to ourselves.

What happens if China, which is plainly worried by the US economy (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/10/09/china-is-worried-about-the-u-s-shutdown-and-it-should-be/), loses faith in the US dollar?

Answer: Why worry? Be happy.

Thomas Friedman, "Too Big to Breathe?": Intellectual Pollution

On yet another inane trip around the globe, adding to environmental and intellectual pollution, Thomas Friedman begins his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Too Big to Breathe?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/opinion/friedman-too-big-to-breathe.html) by observing:

"SHANGHAI — I arrived here on Oct. 19th and was greeted with this news: A combination of cold weather, lack of wind, coal-powered heating and farmers burning off post-harvest debris had created a perfect storm of pollution in the northeastern industrial city of Harbin, home to 10 million people. It was so bad that bus drivers were getting lost because the smog-enveloped roads would only permit them to see a few yards ahead. Harbin’s official website reportedly warned that 'cars with headlights turned on were moving no faster than pedestrians and honking frequently as drivers struggled to see traffic lights meters away.'"

In case you've forgotten, this is the same Thomas Friedman who infamously fantasized, "what if we could just be China for a day?" (see: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/199750/its-he-does-it-purpose/jonah-goldberg).

Of course, China has more than just an air quality problem, and it would be nice if Friedman were also to mention that China leads the world in executions, but I suppose that would be testing the friendship of his hosts.

Enough said.

Thomas Friedman, "The Shanghai Secret": Could the Results Have Been Rigged?

Ah yes, the wonders of China! And wonder of wonders, Thomas Friedman has discovered the "secret"!

In the past, Friedman sang paeans to China's ultramodern airports (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/opinion/24friedman.html) and bullet trains (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/opinion/10friedman.html). Today, however, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "The Shanghai Secret" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/23/opinion/friedman-the-shanghai-secret.html?_r=0),  Tom Terrific is back to tell us "that Shanghai’s public secondary schools topped the world charts in the 2009 PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) exams that measure the ability of 15-year-olds in 65 countries to apply what they’ve learned in math, science and reading." Marveling at this success, Friedman writes of Shanghai’s Qiangwei Primary School:

"When you sit in on a class here and meet with the principal and teachers, what you find is a relentless focus on all the basics that we know make for high-performing schools but that are difficult to pull off consistently across an entire school system. These are: a deep commitment to teacher training, peer-to-peer learning and constant professional development, a deep involvement of parents in their children’s learning, an insistence by the school’s leadership on the highest standards and a culture that prizes education and respects teachers.

Shanghai’s secret is simply its ability to execute more of these fundamentals in more of its schools more of the time. Take teacher development. Shen Jun, Qiangwei’s principal, who has overseen its transformation in a decade from a low-performing to a high-performing school — even though 40 percent of her students are children of poorly educated migrant workers — says her teachers spend about 70 percent of each week teaching and 30 percent developing teaching skills and lesson planning. That is far higher than in a typical American school.

Teng Jiao, 26, an English teacher here, said school begins at 8:35 a.m. and runs to 4:30 p.m., during which he typically teaches three 35-minute lessons. I sat in on one third-grade English class. The English lesson was meticulously planned, with no time wasted. The rest of his day, he said, is spent on lesson planning, training online or with his team, having other teachers watch his class and tell him how to improve and observing the classrooms of master teachers."

Congratulations to Tom on discovering this "secret"! Imagine if American teachers were only asked to teach three 35-minute lessons a day!

But forgive me for asking, why does Tom describe a discussion in English with Teng Jiao and not with his privileged third-grade students?

And if Shanghai’s public secondary schools are indeed the best, why didn't he visit with the 15-year-olds?

Finally, how do we know that test scores weren't rigged? This happens constantly in the US, but of course in China, such a thing could never happen . . . .

Thanks anyway, Tom, for yet another enlightening opinion piece.

[Today, see also: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/10/new-york-times-editorial-united-states.html]

Maureen Dowd, "Cat on a Hot Stove": The End

This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end

Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end
No safety or surprise, the end
I'll never look into your eyes...again

- The Doors, "The End," 1967

Did you happen to notice that US national debt rose a record $328 billion in a single day and ticked over the $17 trillion mark? When does it stop rising? It doesn't. It's out of control and unsustainable, although you wouldn't know it from the sovereign debt ratings assigned to the US by S&P (AA+), Moody's (AAA) and Fitch (AAA).

You want the truth? You can't handle the truth! On Thursday, China's Dagong Global Credit Rating downgraded America's sovereign debt to A- with a negative outlook (see: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101122993), yet no one on Wall Street stopped to notice. After all, why should it matter what America's largest creditor thinks?

For that matter, why should it even matter to Wall Street that Douglas Elmendorf, head of the Congressional Budget Office, recently declared, "The federal budget is on a course that cannot be sustained indefinitely" (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101065200)? An A- rating with a negative outlook is actually too high, but let's bury our heads in the sand and continue to let the good times roll! 

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Cat on a Hot Stove" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/20/opinion/sunday/cat-on-a-hot-stove.html?ref=maureendowd&_r=0), Maureen Dowd begins by observing:

"PRESIDENT OBAMA won big.

So why did the moment feel so small?

At his victory scold in the State Dining Room on Thursday, the president who yearned to be transformational stood beneath an oil portrait of Abraham Lincoln and demanded . . . a farm bill. He also couldn’t resist taking a holier-than-thou tone toward his tail-between-their-legs Tea Party foes. He assumed his favorite role of the shining knight hectoring the benighted: Sir Lecturealot.

'All of us need to stop focusing on the lobbyists and the bloggers and the talking heads on radio and the professional activists who profit from conflict,' he sermonized. (We have met the enemy and they are . . . bloggers?)"

Obama won big? Why did the moment feel so small? My sympathies are not with the scorched earth tactics of the Tea Party, but one of the last opportunities to set the American economy aright has come and gone. If Obama won big, America - not the Republicans - lost big. And although it may take another 25 years (less if interest rates rise), the writing is on the wall. (Stop focusing on the . . . bloggers? That should make all the difference.)

Dowd continues:

"Obama says he will now work for an immigration bill and a budget deal with deficit cuts. But as Peter Nicholas and Carol E. Lee pointed out in The Wall Street Journal, the president did not mention his more ambitious goals: hiking the minimum wage, widening access to preschool education, and shoring up bridges and roads."

From where will the funding for Obamacare and these other "ambitious goals" come? Answer: With the shutdown behind us, the US Treasury will soon be printing money around the clock, and it might be well worth your while to begin examining financing options on a hi-tech wheelbarrow that will soon be needed to cart piles of $100 bills over to the nearest supermarket to buy bread.

Dowd's conclusion:

"The paradox of Obama is that he believes in his own magical powers, but then he doesn’t turn up to use them."

But why should he bother using these magical powers, if, as Valerie Jarrett would have us know, the president has "been bored to death his whole life" and is "just too talented to do what ordinary people do"? Or stated more simply, why should the anointed one condescend to the level of the hoi polloi?

As I see it, three more years of Obama should pretty much finish off any chance of the US surviving as a global power - economic, military or otherwise.

Paul Krugman, "This Age of Bubbles": What About US Stock Markets?

Within the recent past, did a pop-up ad ever appear on your computer screen, with a woman dressed scantily for "Carnival," offering you high returns on investments in Brazilian eucalyptus plantations? Both the woman and the rates of return seemed attractive, but as I explained to a friend, both beauty and high rates of return don't last.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "This Age of Bubbles" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/opinion/krugman-this-age-of-bubbles.html?_r=0), Paul Krugman considers the nature of financial bubbles. Krugman concludes:

"In short, the main lesson of this age of bubbles — a lesson that India, Brazil, and others are learning once again — is that when the financial industry is set loose to do its thing, it lurches from crisis to crisis."

As anyone who reads this blog knows, I have serious issues with the greed and manipulative practices of an unfettered financial industry. One need only examine my routine diatribes aimed at restoring the "Uptick Rule" to understand how troubled I am by financial industry excesses (see, most recently: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/08/maureen-dowd-summers-of-our-discontent.html).

But is only the financial industry to blame for these crises? Could it also be that retired persons currently have no secure place to invest their savings, given that bank deposits pay so little interest today? Low rates on bank deposits do not result - at least directly - from financial industry excesses, but rather from Federal Reserve efforts to reduce interest rates to stimulate the economy.

But as long as we're talking about "bubbles," why is there no mention by Krugman of US stock markets?

Let's face it: The US economy is still rotten. As reported by Bernice Napach in an article entitled "Income Stats Suggest American Dream Is Dead" (http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/income-stats-suggest-american-dream-dead-161855152.html):

"The Great Recession officially ended in June 2009, but the U.S. economy still has not fully recovered. While existing home sales have returned to their June 2009 level and the current unemployment rate of 7.4% is far below the June 2009 rate of 9.5%, less people are participating in the work force and incomes are decisively lower.

A new report out Thursday from Sentier Research found that the median annual household income of Americans was $52,100 in June, after adjusting for inflation. That's 4.4% below the level in December 2009.

Even more dramatic, the median income is 6.1% lower than the level in December 2007, when the recession began, and 7.2% lower than January 2000. For many Americans incomes aren’t just stagnant, they’re falling along with their purchasing power and standard of living."

So why are US stock markets so high if things are so bad? The answer is simple: There is no secure place to park your money and receive a reasonable rate of return.

Yes, current US stock market prices are also a bubble, which ultimately must burst. Regrettably, they are not a reflection of an upturn in the economy.

Thomas Friedman, "Revenge of the Mistresses": Friedman's "Long March"

Over the course of an agonizingly long journey much akin to Mao's "Long March," Thomas Friedman continues to wake up to the fact that China is not only about bullet trains and ultramodern airports (see, for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/01/opinion/01friedman.html), but also about pervasive corruption and suppressed masses, deprived of basic human freedoms.

Concerned by "a stable diversification of [China's] low-wage, high-export, state-led command economy," Friedman writes in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Revenge of the Mistresses" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/opinion/friedman-revenge-of-the-mistresses.html?_r=0):

"The world can ill afford a chaotic transition in China. With America stuck in slow growth, Europe mired in stagnation and the Arab world imploding, China has been a vital economic engine for the global economy. If China’s sagging growth and employment rates meet rising discontent with corruption by officials — trying to get their own while the getting is still good — we will not have a stable transition in China. And if one-sixth of humanity starts going through an unstable and uncertain political/economic transition, it will shake the world."

What doesn't Friedman say concerning China's woes?

Friedman doesn't tell us about China's demographic time bomb. As reported by The Economist in an article entitled "China’s Achilles heel" (http://www.economist.com/node/21553056):

"Between 2010 and 2050 China's workforce will shrink as a share of the population by 11 percentage points, from 72% to 61%—a huge contraction, even allowing for the fact that the workforce share is exceptionally large now. That means China's old-age dependency ratio (which compares the number of people over 65 with those aged 15 to 64) will soar. At the moment the ratio is 11—roughly half America's level of 20. But by 2050, China's old-age ratio will have risen fourfold to 42, surpassing America's. Even more strikingly, by 2050, the number of people coming towards the end of their working lives (ie, those in their 50s) will have risen by more than 10%. The number of those just setting out (those in their early 20s, who are usually the best educated and most productive members of society) will have halved.

The shift spells the end of China as the world's factory. The apparently endless stream of cheap labour is starting to run dry. Despite pools of underemployed country-dwellers, China already faces shortages of manual workers."

"Make your money and get out"? Those Chinese officials know far better than Friedman what they're talking about.

Paul Krugman, "Hitting China’s Wall": The Perfect Economic Storm

Will China soon be on the ropes?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Hitting China’s Wall" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/19/opinion/krugman-hitting-chinas-wall.html?_r=0), Paul Krugman warns that China's "lopsided balance between consumption and investment" threatens future economic chaos. Specifically, regarding the effect of this ineluctable debacle on the West, Krugman writes:

"How big a deal is this for the rest of us? At market values — which is what matters for the global outlook — China’s economy is still only modestly bigger than Japan’s; it’s around half the size of either the U.S. or the European Union. So it’s big but not huge, and, in ordinary times, the world could probably take China’s troubles in stride.

Unfortunately, these aren’t ordinary times: China is hitting its Lewis point at the same time that Western economies are going through their 'Minsky moment,' the point when overextended private borrowers all try to pull back at the same time, and in so doing provoke a general slump. China’s new woes are the last thing the rest of us needed."

What doesn't Krugman say concerning China's woes?

Krugman doesn't tell us about China's demographic time bomb. As reported by The Economist in an article entitled "China’s Achilles heel" (http://www.economist.com/node/21553056):

"Between 2010 and 2050 China's workforce will shrink as a share of the population by 11 percentage points, from 72% to 61%—a huge contraction, even allowing for the fact that the workforce share is exceptionally large now. That means China's old-age dependency ratio (which compares the number of people over 65 with those aged 15 to 64) will soar. At the moment the ratio is 11—roughly half America's level of 20. But by 2050, China's old-age ratio will have risen fourfold to 42, surpassing America's. Even more strikingly, by 2050, the number of people coming towards the end of their working lives (ie, those in their 50s) will have risen by more than 10%. The number of those just setting out (those in their early 20s, who are usually the best educated and most productive members of society) will have halved.

The shift spells the end of China as the world's factory. The apparently endless stream of cheap labour is starting to run dry. Despite pools of underemployed country-dwellers, China already faces shortages of manual workers."

The effect on the West, specifically the United States?  Remarkably, there is no mention by Krugman that China owns more than $1.2 trillion in US bills, notes and bonds, or some eight percent of US debt. What would happen if China were hurriedly to demand repayment of these funds from the US? You don't want to know.