Comments for

Comment on Global Economy by Geoff Cochran

Geoff Cochran — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:04:39 +0000

One of the main reasons the United States became a global hegemon is the result of isolationist policies in regard to economic development, political influence, and military reach. Only during the early part of the twentieth century did the US compromise its isolationist tradition and only then did the barriers fall as a result of fascism and the fear of Communism. Since the end of the Cold War and the rise of globalization, the US has all but abandoned protectionist policies and succumbed to the utopian view of free trade as the country’s and the world’s panacea, all the while forgetting what put the US at the pinnacle of achievement.

In response to the developments of the latter twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, other nations caught on. The European powers unified under the EU to compete on a global scale with the US. China and India started to actualize their potential as world superpowers. Even smaller nations (i.e. Pakistan and North Korea) with aspirations of a role on the international stage sought and obtained nuclear capabilities to flex military might. Slowly, almost imperceptibly, the US is losing ground in international arenas.

I agree with the author that there is a way for the US to regain its position in the global marketplace, but it will take a bit more focus than on just three areas. Additionally, there are a few more pressing issues to deal with in place of those offered by the previous author. While the US will undoubtedly face the need to develop domestic markets, this path will yield little permanent result unless we develop the most fundamental American capital: our citizens. In recent years, American education failed to compare to other developed nations. While American test scores are slightly better than the international average, students in countries like Japan, Chinese Taipei, and even Russia outperform their American counterparts. We cannot even hold a faint hope of competing internationally if we are unable to develop the country’s youth. In regard to a global political body, the world already has one. The United Nations thus far fails to provide adequate accountability to global agents. This may one day change, but as it currently stands, any IGO will go the path of the UN. Instead the world should embrace a system of checks and balances that has surfaced in the wake of globalization. By fostering an interchange between governments, corporations, and NGOs that focuses on economic influence, there exists the possibility of adequate protection for individuals. Finally, American diplomatic efforts must focus on improving relations among current and future allies as opposed to in recent years when American military aggression has damaged our relationships with nearly every international actor. If US forces systematically alienate the rest of the world’s population, we will find ourselves isolated not through our own policy decisions, but because the world has turned its back on us. The international community will continue as a community with or without American involvement.

Comment on Cuba and Haiti: The Alternative Fuel Mixture by robert neil

robert neil — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:27:51 +0000

The problem that we are having now is not something that pops up out of nowhere, we knew
for many years now that one day we’ll face the consequence of not looking for other sources of
energy, the car makers keep building up bigger cars that require more gas, this is where we are today. What should we do?

Comment on World Population Explosion by Rev. Bob Hoeller

Rev. Bob Hoeller — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 19:48:35 +0000

I have to agree; the premise of what Dr. Kuo states in her article is sound, but I think the argument for “why” is flawed. I agree; the planet is shrinking at an alarming rate. We are becoming rapidly overpopulated for the limited resources at hand. We have not been good stewards of the land we have been given, so much so that the possibility of a sustainable future is diminished. I also agree that there is a deafening silence within the developed western nations on this issue, but I can honestly say I do not hear a din from the eastern nations either. From what I can see the “one child policy” adopted in China does little to curb its insatiable need for more fuel, food, water, and other sustainable or unsustainable resources. Nor does it slake the incredible thirst China seems to have for industrial growth and expansion that has tilted the world scale of emitted green house gasses in its favor. Bloomberg News reported in an article from last summer, “China overtook the United States in 2006 as the world’s biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas blamed for the bulk of global warming… China produced 6,200 million tons of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels and making cement last year. That pushed it past the United States, which produced 5,800 million tons of the gas.” Don’t get me wrong, I think both nations are doing a bad job, but when served up as the Christian ethic vs. the atheist ethic, I see little difference in stewardship in this area, and little room for either to point finger at the other.
Dr. Kou states that somehow China, because it is atheist (at least at the government level, but probably not in the hearts of most of the people of that nation) “is superior because it is able to adopt reason and logic as basis of policy and not emotions.” I am a theist, and therefore take an opposing view. To propose that the policies of a nation have their root in either logic or emotion based on the prevalent spiritual or a-spiritual belief of the people is carelessly proposed as fact with no empirical data. I will say however to make the argument that the world’s most populace nation (China) has made great strides in curbing the world’s population seems to me to be flawed. According to UN Data from 2007, China ranks number one in total population with 1,321,851,888, India second with 1,129,866,154, and the United States coming in a distant third with 301,139,947.
Dr. Kuo makes the leap from Christianity to democracy in the end of her argument, as if they might be one and the same. I would agree with her on one point, democracy is not efficient when strong measures are concerned. Democracy, at its very core is about liberty, and liberty is not good at applying strong measures to curb the will of the people, but is better at creating an atmosphere of civil discourse on these and other important issues. I like what Benjamin Franklin had to say: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” Liberty is the soul of America, but it does not give us license to be careless with our environment and resource, nor does it always make us better stewards. Absence of individual liberty is a controlling factor in China, and it too does not give it license to be careless with the environment and resource, neither does it make it a better steward.
I do not believe the issue at hand has anything to do with either Christianity or Atheism. I do believe it has everything to do with greed and power. These are unfortunate characteristics both nations hold. I have not seen a western or eastern nation that has been able to conduct themselves with complete dignity when in a position of great power, it always corrupts. The faith beliefs of the people, whether it is Christianity or Atheism is not the real problem, and I think this argument diverts us away from the real issue of power and greed. At the core of the Christian belief is stewardship. The first ordinance from God in the Garden of Eden given to Adam is to take charge of creation, and to be a good steward. The other ordinance is to populate, (not overpopulate) the earth. There is a deep seeded desire in the Christian to care for that which was given us by God. I would, therefore strongly disagree with the argument that a tenet of Christianity is that we have been given a divine ordinance to “have as many children as we like.” That statement is a generalization, and I think a caricature of Christianity rather than fact based on biblical understanding. On the other hand, the definition of an atheist that was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963) states this: “An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.” The only thing that seems to separate the Atheist as defined here, and the Christian is the source of our being. We differ in whether we are here because of a divine creator or a lucky accident. If the definition can be taken at face value, when it comes to stewardship we should be of one accord, and I think if we look at the grass root level, we will find that we are. I think we must look elsewhere for the culprit in this great problem of stewardship. After all it will fall to us all, whether Christian, Atheist, or those of another faith, to face and overcome together.

Comment on The Housing Market and Economic Recovery by RW Yovic

RW Yovic — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 22:04:52 +0000

U.S. financial institutions need to finally learn a lesson about interest rates. That is if you are making higher interest on more risky investments or loans you also stand to lose your money. For too long have banks and other financial institutions been bailed out by the fed and the IMF via U.S. treasury. Look at the financial crises of the Clinton years. Why did the IMF give Mexico the relief package? So that U.S. lenders could get their money back. It didn’t help the Mexicans one bit. Same thing in Thailand, and Brazil. If we had let these countries default we may not have the problem we do today with the sub-prime. We have let investors enjoy a Heads you win Tails you don’t lose environment, and this is the result.
Some will argue that if we didn’t bail out the banks on their foreign direct investment people would not be willing to invest in the future. This is not true. Someone will invest if the interest rate is high enough. Look at Russia when it had interest in the triple digits. This is an extreme case, but shows my point.

It is correct though that the sub-prime is being felt around the world look as UBS with its 12 billion in losses. We are not the only ones who have been naughty in our lending practices.

With our currency, however, your assertions may not be true. The U.S. dollar is as strong as it was in the early nineties. The difference is that then it was on an upward trend. Now the trend is downward, and we are mostly comparing it to strong currencies such as the Euro or Canadian dollar. The reality is that a weak dollar is exactly what we need to begin to turn around the massive deficit in our current account. Weak currency means that we have cheap exports. We should be taking the massive credit on our financial account and investing it into production. Maybe a little import substitution could help. Though we cannot compete with Chinese and Indian wages, we can produce more effciently and ethically. If we can inform consumers on the benefits of buying American products people may be willing to buy a more expensive product that was made in the U.S. and gauranteed in quality, safety, and responsible inputs.