Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 124

Thread: Foreign demand falls for Treasuries

  1. #31
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Foreign demand falls for Treasuries

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    What are our myriad critical interests that require a larger more effective offensive military capability?
    One such key interest involves East Asian stability. The U.S. security role has helped maintain stability in an area where rivalries still exist. In the absence of a U.S. security role, the region might well have succumbed to the kind of arms races, including in nuclear arms, and even conflicts that had occurred in the past from time to time. That would have diverted resources and efforts of those countries from economic growth and development.

    In short, stability in East Asia has played an important role in making it possible for that region to develop robustly growing economies and improving living standards. That economic growth/development has benefited the U.S., too. The U.S. has a major stake in ensuring such stability continues and the busy Pacific shipping lanes cannot be blocked by any single nation.

    Another key interest involves a capacity to prevent a hostile state from dominating the Persian Gulf Region through which a disproportionate share of the world's present oil passes. That share will grow over time based on proved reserves and depletion in other parts of the world. Needless to say, a credible energy policy that seeks to move the U.S. and its allies away from reliance on oil for a large share of its energy needs would be a wise investment. The geopolitical and national security argument for such investment is a strong one.

    Those are two examples. When one is evaluating the capabilities the U.S. needs, one needs to factor in the net benefits/opportunity costs associated with various capability options. A pure look at military spending as a percentage of GDP overlooks that broader context.

    Our current military spending almost equals the rest of the world combined. Why would cutting that spending by 50% hurt our defensive capability?
    Personally, I don't know what level of reduction could be possible before each dollar of cost savings would yield adverse consequences (increased risk, adverse consequences from growing instability in key theaters, reduced deterrence, etc.,) that outweigh the financial savings. Only a robust and comprehensive examination would provide the proper details. My guess is that meaningful savings (perhaps on the order of 5% or more of annual national defense expenditures excluding costs related to the Afghanistan/Iraq military operations) probably can be derived without harming national security, but I can't put an exact number on it.

    My point is that the U.S. military, even as it is expected to become more efficient and effective, needs to be sustained at a level whereas the U.S. is able to preserve/advance its critical interests.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 02-18-10 at 07:43 PM.

  2. #32
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Foreign demand falls for Treasuries

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    One such key interest involves East Asian stability. The U.S. security role has helped maintain stability in an area where rivalries still exist. In the absence of a U.S. security role, the region might well have succumbed to the kind of arms races, including in nuclear arms, and even conflicts that had occurred in the past from time to time. That would have diverted resources and efforts of those countries from economic growth and development.

    In short, stability in East Asia has played an important role in making it possible for that region to develop robustly growing economies and improving living standards. That economic growth/development has benefited the U.S., too. The U.S. has a major stake in ensuring such stability continues and the busy Pacific shipping lanes cannot be blocked by any single nation.
    I have several problems with that line of thinking, we were not elected to be the world's policeman and it is not in our founding charter, the Constitution.
    There is also the thinking that our interference and support for the various flavors of our economic interest through the years has prevented the natural order of civil wars for people to decide on their own how they will be run rather than some colonial power deciding what is best for them.
    Another key interest involves a capacity to prevent a hostile state from dominating the Persian Gulf Region through which a disproportionate share of the world's present oil passes. That share will grow over time based on proved reserves and depletion in other parts of the world. Needless to say, a credible energy policy that seeks to move the U.S. and its allies away from reliance on oil for a large share of its energy needs would be a wise investment. The geopolitical and national security argument for such investment is a strong one.
    We should have started in the 70's moving away from an oil based economy when we passed peak oil. I can not morally justify our military domination of another country's resources based on our own stupidity in the past and present greed.

    It is their oil and they have a right to do with it as they choose. Personally, given that is their main resource and it is in such demand world wide, I cannot imagine they would not sell it, do you?

    Those are two examples. When one is evaluating the capabilities the U.S. needs, one needs to factor in the net benefits/opportunity costs associated with various capability options. A pure look at military spending as a percentage of GDP overlooks that broader context.
    Right, both positive and negative effects from an interventionist foreign policy.

    Personally, I don't know what level of reduction could be possible before each dollar of cost savings would yield adverse consequences (increased risk, adverse consequences from growing instability in key theaters, reduced deterrence, etc.,) that outweigh the financial savings. Only a robust and comprehensive examination would provide the proper details. My guess is that meaningful savings (perhaps on the order of 5% or more of annual national defense expenditures excluding costs related to the Afghanistan/Iraq military operations) probably can be derived without harming national security, but I can't put an exact number on it.
    Bush doubled our annual military budget. Do you feel the US was unsafe before that period?

    My point is that the U.S. military, even as it is expected to become more efficient and effective, needs to be sustained at a level whereas the U.S. is able to preserve/advance its critical interests.
    I feel those interests should be limited to defense, in keeping with our ethical and debt reduction goals.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  3. #33
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Foreign demand falls for Treasuries

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    I have several problems with that line of thinking, we were not elected to be the world's policeman and it is not in our founding charter, the Constitution.
    The Constitution does not prohibit an engaged foreign policy.

    There is also the thinking that our interference and support for the various flavors of our economic interest through the years has prevented the natural order of civil wars for people to decide on their own how they will be run rather than some colonial power deciding what is best for them.
    Without doubt, the U.S., like any other nation, has made some foreign policy mistakes. IMO, contributing toward East Asian reconstruction and then stability following World War II was one of the better long-term policies. The absence of warfare among let's say China and Japan and the economic miracles that saw large parts of East Asia become economic powerhouses so to speak have greatly benefited the U.S. The economic benefits from trade dwarf both the costs of reconstruction and the costs of maintaining bases in that part of the world.

    We should have started in the 70's moving away from an oil based economy when we passed peak oil.
    No disagreement about moving away in the 1970s. Unfortunately there was a failure to learn from the twin energy shocks of the 1970s and, the early verdict appears that there has also been a failure to learn from the 2008 oil price spike.

    I can not morally justify our military domination of another country's resources based on our own stupidity in the past and present greed.

    It is their oil and they have a right to do with it as they choose.
    I didn't advocate that at all. My point was that the U.S. needs a capability to keep the Persian Gulf's shipping lanes open e.g., to prevent let's say Iran from shutting down those lanes to serve its political interests at the expense of the region's other sovereign states and their trading partners. Those shipping lanes are one of the world's chokepoints and no country should be able to block shipping in those vital international waters. Now, if the region's countries choose, for whatever reason, not to sell oil, that's an entirely different proposition from what I was discussing.

    Right, both positive and negative effects from an interventionist foreign policy.
    Whether or not the U.S. chooses a foreign policy of engagement vs. abdication has trade-offs, including budgetary ones. A more focused foreign policy might provide better utilization of human and financial resources and greater coherence with respect to national interests. IMO, abdication would go too far and the adverse impact on U.S. interests would outweigh any short-term financial savings that might result. In a worst-case scenario, abdication could prove as disastrous as non-interventionism was during the early years of WW II and, with the U.S. entering the war at a more advanced stage in that global conflict, the costs (human, economic, and financial) were far greater than they would have been had the U.S., for instance, unequivocally pledged to come to France's or Britain's aid were Germany to attack them (possible deterrence) and done so immediately when those red lines were crossed (less war damage, quicker end to the war, etc.).

    I feel those interests should be limited to defense, in keeping with our ethical and debt reduction goals.
    There is broad consensus among the major foreign policy schools (Liberal internationalism, Realism, and Neo-conservatism) over a large share of interests, even as those schools have differences e.g., the neo-conservatives are more willing to justify the use of force to advance democracy (something that I think is overreach, as democracy is function of traditions, laws, institutions, etc., not who heads a country or whether a country holds elections). The main point is that the U.S. is not likely anytime soon, whether it is headed by a Democrat or Republican, to embrace abdication. So, a defense posture based strictly on such an approach is not a likely outcome.

  4. #34
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Foreign demand falls for Treasuries

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Kind of funny how our debt has been growing steadily for 30 years but only now it is "Obama's" out of control spending. I wonder what it was called when Reagan was doing it.
    Let's be realistic when we're discussing graphs.



    The bottom one is far more relevant than the top (which is still more relevant than using one not adjusted for inflation).

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Goldenboy219,

    Health care reform could provide such an impact if it is designed properly. However, political efforts were made to gut even modest cost-savings tools e.g., existing physician payments schemes.
    As the doctor fix goes, so goes the nation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    I agree the out of control medical costs are the biggest hurdle but the price tag for our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are hardly insignificant. The bill in December 2008 was $1 trillion dollars.

    The $1 Trillion Bill for Bush's War on Terror - TIME
    Not insignificant, but not much compared to Medicare's $89 trillion unfunded liability.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    I have several problems with that line of thinking, we were not elected to be the world's policeman and it is not in our founding charter, the Constitution.
    The Constitution also doesn't mention joining and providing funding/troops for an international "world's policeman," but most people making your objection don't seem to have a problem with that.

    There is also the thinking that our interference and support for the various flavors of our economic interest through the years has prevented the natural order of civil wars for people to decide on their own how they will be run rather than some colonial power deciding what is best for them.
    And on those occasions where we've refused to get involved, it's been much better for all those involved. Just ask the Tutsis how happy they are to live in a country that practiced self-determination.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  5. #35
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Foreign demand falls for Treasuries

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    The Constitution does not prohibit an engaged foreign policy.
    It does not authorize either.

    No disagreement about moving away in the 1970s. Unfortunately there was a failure to learn from the twin energy shocks of the 1970s and, the early verdict appears that there has also been a failure to learn from the 2008 oil price spike.
    Agreed.

    I didn't advocate that at all. My point was that the U.S. needs a capability to keep the Persian Gulf's shipping lanes open e.g., to prevent let's say Iran from shutting down those lanes to serve its political interests at the expense of the region's other sovereign states and their trading partners. Those shipping lanes are one of the world's chokepoints and no country should be able to block shipping in those vital international waters. Now, if the region's countries choose, for whatever reason, not to sell oil, that's an entirely different proposition from what I was discussing.
    We had the capability to keep the Persian Gulf's shipping lanes open before Bush doubled the military budget.

    Whether or not the U.S. chooses a foreign policy of engagement vs. abdication has trade-offs, including budgetary ones. A more focused foreign policy might provide better utilization of human and financial resources and greater coherence with respect to national interests. IMO, abdication would go too far and the adverse impact on U.S. interests would outweigh any short-term financial savings that might result. In a worst-case scenario, abdication could prove as disastrous as non-interventionism was during the early years of WW II and, with the U.S. entering the war at a more advanced stage in that global conflict, the costs (human, economic, and financial) were far greater than they would have been had the U.S., for instance, unequivocally pledged to come to France's or Britain's aid were Germany to attack them (possible deterrence) and done so immediately when those red lines were crossed (less war damage, quicker end to the war, etc.).
    Not sure how any of that applies to our invasion/occupation/regime change/new Iraqi oil law in Iraq.
    There is broad consensus among the major foreign policy schools (Liberal internationalism, Realism, and Neo-conservatism) over a large share of interests, even as those schools have differences e.g., the neo-conservatives are more willing to justify the use of force to advance democracy (something that I think is overreach, as democracy is function of traditions, laws, institutions, etc., not who heads a country or whether a country holds elections). The main point is that the U.S. is not likely anytime soon, whether it is headed by a Democrat or Republican, to embrace abdication. So, a defense posture based strictly on such an approach is not a likely outcome.
    I understand that but it does not address the ethics of our foreign policy of killing innocent people and militarily dominating their countries due to our interest in their oil.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  6. #36
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Foreign demand falls for Treasuries

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Not insignificant, but not much compared to Medicare's $89 trillion unfunded liability.
    Exactly the reason Health Care Reform is needed.

    The Constitution also doesn't mention joining and providing funding/troops for an international "world's policeman," but most people making your objection don't seem to have a problem with that.
    I never claimed to speak for most people. I am presenting the moral argument.

    And on those occasions where we've refused to get involved, it's been much better for all those involved. Just ask the Tutsis how happy they are to live in a country that practiced self-determination.
    So we are to be the "deciders" of how all other countries are to be run?
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  7. #37
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Foreign demand falls for Treasuries

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Exactly the reason Health Care Reform is needed.
    How exactly will health care reform fix Medicare's unfunded liability?

    I never claimed to speak for most people. I am presenting the moral argument.
    No, you're presenting a legal argument, claiming that the Constitution doesn't authorize it. How on earth is that a moral argument?

    So we are to be the "deciders" of how all other countries are to be run?
    Yes, that's exactly what I said.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  8. #38
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: Foreign demand falls for Treasuries

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    China is selling our debt what will this do to our economy? Obama's out of control spending may need to stop.
    May need to stop..........May need?
    There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.

    Originally Posted by PogueMoran
    I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.

  9. #39
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: Foreign demand falls for Treasuries

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Yes, that was OBL's stated plan. And its been working! However, I do not understand what do you mean by this:"U.S. has a need for a larger and more effective military capability than many other countries do given its myriad critical interests."

    What are our myriad critical interests that require a larger more effective offensive military capability?

    Our current military spending almost equals the rest of the world combined. Why would cutting that spending by 50% hurt our defensive capability?
    Cutting our military by 50%, and the commitments cuts that the 50% cut would require, would decimate Europe's Public health Care system.

    They would have to spend the money on their military instead of relying on us for protection.
    There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.

    Originally Posted by PogueMoran
    I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.

  10. #40
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Foreign demand falls for Treasuries

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    It does not authorize either.
    The Founders were sufficiently wise to focus on defining the powers to be given to each branch of government, while avoiding rigid constraints so as to allow the nation's policymakers sufficient latitude to define a foreign policy consistent with its interests and requirements, both of which can change over time. Setting forth a rigid legal prescription within the Constitution would have been a terrible error that would only have provided foreign policy paralysis.

    We had the capability to keep the Persian Gulf's shipping lanes open before Bush doubled the military budget.
    A capability to maintain open shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf was one example of a vital international interest. A nation's defense posture can't be grounded solely in a single interest.

    I understand that but it does not address the ethics of our foreign policy of killing innocent people...
    The U.S. has no policy that advocates the killing of innocent people. In fact, just the opposite is true. For example, the February 15, 2010 edition of The New York Times revealed efforts that U.S. is undertaking to minimize civilian casualties:

    They [NATO and Afghan military officials] acknowledge that the rules entail risk to its troops, but maintain that civilian casualties or destruction of property can alienate the population and lead to more insurgent recruits, more homemade bombs and a prolonged conflict.

    But troops complain that strict rules of engagement -- imposed to spare civilian casualties -- are slowing their advance into the town of Marjah in Helmand province, the focal point of the operation involving 15,000 troops.

Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •