Thomas Friedman Gets Something Right
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 23, 2024, 03:32:21 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Thomas Friedman Gets Something Right
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Thomas Friedman Gets Something Right  (Read 1214 times)
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 08, 2007, 12:18:27 AM »

This article struck an extraordinarily powerful chord with me, which is unusual in any newspaper article but especially one written by someone like Thomas Friedman. I just want to share it with you all because it is an elegantly written account of the decline of the United States.


Link for those with a NY Times subscription: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/opinion/05friedman.html


Intercepting Iran’s Take on America

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: December 5, 2007

There are two intelligence analyses that are relevant to the balance of power between the U.S. and Iran — one is the latest U.S. assessment of Iran, which certainly gave a much more complex view of what is happening there. The other is the Iranian National Intelligence Estimate of America, which — my guess — would read something like this:

To: President Ahmadinejad

From: The Iranian Ministry of Intelligence

Subject: America

As you’ll recall, in the wake of 9/11, we were extremely concerned that the U.S. would develop a covert program to end its addiction to oil, which would be the greatest threat to Iranian national security. In fact, after Bush’s 2006 State of the Union, in which he decried America’s oil addiction, we had “high confidence” that a comprehensive U.S. clean energy policy would emerge. We were wrong.

Our fears that the U.S. was engaged in a covert “Manhattan Project” to achieve energy independence have been “assuaged.” America’s Manhattan Project turns out to be largely confined to the production of corn ethanol in Iowa, which, our analysts have confirmed from cellphone intercepts between lobbyists and Congressmen, is nothing more than a multibillion-dollar payoff to big Iowa farmers and agro-businesses.

True, thanks to Nancy Pelosi, the U.S. Congress decided to increase the miles per gallon required of U.S. car fleets by the year 2020 — which took us by surprise — but we nevertheless “strongly believe” this will not lead to any definitive breaking of America’s oil addiction, since none of the leading presidential candidates has offered an energy policy that would include a tax on oil or carbon that could trigger a truly transformational shift in America away from fossil fuels.

Therefore, it is “very likely” that Iran’s current level of high oil revenues will last for decades and insulate our regime from any decisive pressures from abroad or from our own people.

We have to note that obtaining open-source intelligence in America has become more difficult, because traditional news shows have become more comedic and more comedic news shows more authoritative.

For instance, CNN’s nightly business report is hosted by a man named “Dobbs.” Real journalists come on his show and present transparently propagandistic stories about immigration and trade and then he fulminates about them, much the way our ayatollahs used to do about “Satanic Americans” on late-night Iranian TV. So viewers have no real idea what’s happening in the U.S. economy.

Meanwhile, at 11 p.m., something called “The Daily Show,” which appears on Comedy Central, has fake journalists presenting what turns out to be the real news.

Yes, our last I.N.I.E. in 1990 concluded that after the collapse of communism, America was on track to become the world’s sole superpower and most compelling role model for Muslim youth — including our own. We were wrong. We now have “high confidence” that America is on a path of self-destruction, for three reasons:

First, 9/11 has made America afraid and therefore stupid. The “war on terrorism” is now so deeply imbedded in America’s psyche that we think it is “highly likely” that America will continue to export more fear than hope and will continue to defend things like torture and Guantánamo Bay prison and to favor politicians like Mr. Giuliani, who alienates the rest of the world.

Second, at a time when America’s bridges, roads, airports and Internet bandwidth have fallen behind other industrial powers, including China, we believe that the U.S. opposition to higher taxes — and the fact that the primary campaigns have focused largely on gay marriage, flag-burning and whether the Christian Bible is the literal truth — means it is “highly unlikely” that America will arrest its decline.

Third, all the U.S. presidential candidates are distancing themselves from the core values that made America such a great power and so different from us — in particular America’s long commitment to free trade, open immigration and a reverence for scientific enquiry wherever it leads. Our intel analysts are baffled that the leading Democrat, Mrs. Clinton, no longer believes in globalization and the leading Republican, Mr. Huckabee, never believed in evolution.

U.S. politicians seem determined to appeal either to the most nativist extremes in their respective parties — or to tell voters that something Americans call “the tooth fairy” will make their energy, budget, educational and Social Security deficits painlessly disappear.

Therefore, we conclude with “high confidence” that there is little likelihood that post-9/11 America will, as they say, “get its groove back” anytime soon.

Who needs nukes when you have this kind of America?

God is Great. Long Live the Iranian Revolution.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,866
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 08, 2007, 12:19:33 AM »

Good article.

I've read a lot of posts hating on Friedman.  I've been meaning to ask why (not a hostile question; I barely know anything about the guy).
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 08, 2007, 12:24:30 AM »

Good article.

I've read a lot of posts hating on Friedman.  I've been meaning to ask why (not a hostile question; I barely know anything about the guy).

A lot of it, certainly from myself, is that Friedman initially bought wholesale into the argument that we needed to invade Iraq to bring democracy, and that simply invading Iraq would catalyze a dramatic democratic shift in the Middle East. He has since recanted from this view, but didn't do so until 2006, and has come out with some other unfortunate positions from time to time. Generally, my label of Friedman would be as an unrelenting optimist, which makes this article especially intriguing.
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 08, 2007, 01:17:45 PM »

Friedman is\was in general a right-wing hack; once claimed that the free market needed "a hidden fist" (ie. A big army\invasion force) so that people (damn foreignors) who didn't want McDonalds would be subjected to it anyway.

Good Article though but not entirely accurate:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is nothing new; look at the 1992 campaign and the likes of Harkin (and Buchanan and David Duke; but that's expected) tried to scare American consumers about the rise of Japan. It always seems to occur whenever American politics and society is in some kind of inertia.

Logged
bullmoose88
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,515


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 08, 2007, 01:36:11 PM »

I'm not sure about the rest of the article...just because an optimistic friedman suddenly takes a different tack doesn't make his points any more valid; however, I do agree with his concerns over protectionism (to a lesser degree) and the essentially huge hand out to corn farmers in regards to our energy policy.

I guess my fear regarding protectionism is a bit mixed.  I personally feel like free trade has won the war of ideas and will continue to be (in some form) the dominant economic strategy for the forseeable future.  That's not to say some short term protectionary measures can't be justfied, not that I'd be likely to support them, but we cannot just toss out protectionism as a short term policy lever out of fanatical adherence to free trade.  Sometimes change comes too fast, or sometimes we just need to smack a tariff down on a nation that doesn't play by the rules.

And that plan for corn ethanol...wonderful...lets tie the price of fuel even closer to the price of food.  If there was ever a reason to go to a national primary or scrap them all together would be to lessen the disproportionate influence of the farm states in our electoral process.  This is one area where I thought Bush had a pretty decent idea regarding energy...called switchgrass or something like that...did we ditch that strategy...if so, why?
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 08, 2007, 09:29:50 PM »

I'm not sure about the rest of the article...just because an optimistic friedman suddenly takes a different tack doesn't make his points any more valid; however, I do agree with his concerns over protectionism (to a lesser degree) and the essentially huge hand out to corn farmers in regards to our energy policy.

I guess my fear regarding protectionism is a bit mixed.  I personally feel like free trade has won the war of ideas and will continue to be (in some form) the dominant economic strategy for the forseeable future.  That's not to say some short term protectionary measures can't be justfied, not that I'd be likely to support them, but we cannot just toss out protectionism as a short term policy lever out of fanatical adherence to free trade.  Sometimes change comes too fast, or sometimes we just need to smack a tariff down on a nation that doesn't play by the rules.

And that plan for corn ethanol...wonderful...lets tie the price of fuel even closer to the price of food.  If there was ever a reason to go to a national primary or scrap them all together would be to lessen the disproportionate influence of the farm states in our electoral process.  This is one area where I thought Bush had a pretty decent idea regarding energy...called switchgrass or something like that...did we ditch that strategy...if so, why?

Very good post.

I agree that we cannot toss out protectionism and the "fanatical adherence" to free trade by so many of its proponents is what has left such a bad taste in my mouth about it.

Free trade, to me, should be the ideal.  We should be able to live in a world where people can trade freely, as it is the ultimate freedom.

But our world economy, as it is today, is certainly not ready for unfettered free trade.  There are too many inequalities regarding environmental and labor regulations that need to be addressed before we can truly embrace free trade as a positive economic policy.

If Mattel wants to make toys in China because they can be made more efficiently and more cheaply there, then that is great.  But when most of that reduced price comes with the stinky garbage of lax environmental regulations that harm consumers and abject poverty of those that assemble the products, there really is nothing "free" about it.  I see it as American companies seeing a gaping loophole that can save them bunches of money and raise profits, and we must do something to fix that.

You cannot blame a company for seeking to reduce production costs in order to boost profits.  It is unethical, however, in my view, when those companies exploit these loopholes and then fund campaigns for politicians who will work against the safety of laborers and consumers to protect the right of the company to keep exploiting.
Logged
jokerman
Cosmo Kramer
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,808
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 08, 2007, 11:08:37 PM »

Well, I agree with your statements on free trade, Snowguy.  There's certainly a difference between a nation producing a product cheaper because of real innovation and producing it cheaper because of a violation of standards of environmental protection, labor, and safety that are respected by facilities here in the U.S.  I'm a big proponent of globalization but we've got to curb the excesses of it.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 09, 2007, 04:54:52 PM »

Well, I agree with your statements on free trade, Snowguy.  There's certainly a difference between a nation producing a product cheaper because of real innovation and producing it cheaper because of a violation of standards of environmental protection, labor, and safety that are respected by facilities here in the U.S.  I'm a big proponent of globalization but we've got to curb the excesses of it.

Very true. Bottom line as I see it is that so long as we have willing and available manpower and the technology to make a product in this country with no loss of quality of the product itself, it's going to be more advantageous to our economy in the long run to make it here than to import it, even if the imported product is cheaper. The extra expense to the consumer of having the product made domestically will be more than outweighed in the long run by the higher wages being paid to American workers. The same would go for other countries, of course, in their attitudes towards US products; by no means do I mean to be nativist or xenophobic here, each country is going to have it in its interest to make as many products domestically as they reasonably can.

Now, if we can't make something in this country, or if we could make it but the quality would be lower than those produced overseas, or if our economy gets so strong and jobs so plentiful that we'd have to pay workers an exorbinant wage to be willing to make it here, than by all means we should have completely open free trade with regards to importing it.
Logged
Cubby
Pim Fortuyn
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,067
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -3.74, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 09, 2007, 06:18:38 PM »

Good article.

I've read a lot of posts hating on Friedman.  I've been meaning to ask why (not a hostile question; I barely know anything about the guy).

I don't hate Friedman, but I strongly disagree with his economic views. He is very vocal about being in support of free trade without any restrictions. That doesn't mean I oppose all free trade, I just have concerns with its effect on local economies. What works best for corporations isn't always whats best for the community.
Logged
bullmoose88
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,515


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 09, 2007, 06:21:29 PM »


The extra expense to the consumer of having the product made domestically will be more than outweighed in the long run by the higher wages being paid to American workers. The same would go for other countries, of course, in their attitudes towards US products; by no means do I mean to be nativist or xenophobic here, each country is going to have it in its interest to make as many products domestically as they reasonably can.


Perhaps...but what have you really gained in higher wages when prices are higher?

And my answer is, a higher nominal wage, and the same (or less) real wage.

Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 09, 2007, 06:21:52 PM »

Read this in school on Friday, thought it was a welcome change from Friedman's usual fare.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 09, 2007, 09:31:03 PM »


The extra expense to the consumer of having the product made domestically will be more than outweighed in the long run by the higher wages being paid to American workers. The same would go for other countries, of course, in their attitudes towards US products; by no means do I mean to be nativist or xenophobic here, each country is going to have it in its interest to make as many products domestically as they reasonably can.


Perhaps...but what have you really gained in higher wages when prices are higher?

And my answer is, a higher nominal wage, and the same (or less) real wage.



Well, obviously it depends on the circumstances, but I don't see the tipping point being anything less than full employment at a minimum, and even then there's underemployment to consider, which in the US at least, is a far bigger issue than unemployment at this time.

For many people, the difference may be between a wage and no wage. Even if it's just a higher wage versus a lower one, don't forget of the residual benefits to others from higher wages; more income means more expenditures, which helps other businesses, etc. And if we are talking about someone being unemployed versus employed, you also have to take into consideration factors such as decreased crime from full employment.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.047 seconds with 12 queries.