Obama is day-dreaming May 3, 2011Posted by hslu in Global Affair, Islam, Obama, Politics.
Tags: 9/11, Al Qaeda, Barack Obama, New York Times, Osama, Osama bin Laden, Pakistan, Terrorism, terrorist, United States, 不怕一万 只怕万一
add a comment
Here is the headline from the New York Times:
I am sorry, Obama. You are at best day dreaming or at worst stupid. You are cheating yourself.
It is of course more difficult to pull off something as big as 9/11, but there will be more one-man or one-woman nut jobs, domestic cultivated or foreign born, who will be willing to give their lives so that they can join Osama in his death.
Here is a Chines saying that the United States is in: 不怕一万, 只怕万一 “bu1 pa4 yi1 wan4, zhi3 pa4 wan1 yi1.”
Literally, 不怕一万, 只怕万一 means ” do not be concerned of ten thousand. It is that one in the ten thousand which you have to afraid of.”
In other words, the US has to be vigilant all times to guard against that lone suicide bomber.
Hmm, I see more of our tax money flying away from my pockets.
Krugman is at it again. January 21, 2011Posted by hslu in China, Economics, Global Affair, jobs, Nursing, Politics.
Tags: Bill Clinton, Democrats, first Obama stimulus, foreign capitals, foreign direct investments, Krugman, New York Times, ObamaCare, pay roll tax relief, QE2, Renminbi, second stimulus, the Fed, The TARP, US Congress, Wal-Mart
1 comment so far
The United States is going down December 5, 2010Posted by hslu in China, Economics, Energy, Global Affair, Islam, jobs, Politics.
Tags: baby boomers, Bill Clinton, China, electric cars, FDI, Iran, Iraq, New York Times, Op-Ed, Russian, The Big American Leak, The United States is going down, Thomas Friedman, Venezuela, WikiLeak
add a comment
If you haven’t read Thomas Friedman’s Op-Ed piece, The Big American Leak, on New York Times, you should.
The sad truth about the two American addictions Friedman talked about in his piece is that they can not be reversed no matter how hard American tries.
What Friedman failed to point out is that there are many other oil producing countries who hate America even more so than Saudi does. Iran and Venezuela are two prime examples while Russian and Iraq are not exactly America’s friends either.
Even worse, some of them tell the United States and the world that they are enemies of America. America may not import oil directly from these countries but the United States depends on them, as much as it does on the Saudis, to maintain their oil flows to avoid interruption of crude oil supply. If they decided to hold back their oil production a mere 10%, for whatever reason that pleases them, the US will be paying $200+ a barrel to the Saudis now. And these countries also get paid at $200+ per barrel too.
Bill Clinton decided in 1993 to cooperate with China and he reckoned that the best way to deal with China was to convert China from communism to capitalism. He has succeeded more than he ever dreamed of.
The massive amount of FDI from the US and other countries since 1993 has allowed China to become the factories of the world, America included. With plants moving from the US to China, America has changed into a service-based economy and the aging of the 78 million baby boomers will make that even more so. America will continue to buy things from China or some foreign countries for the foreseeable future. In other words, the US will owe even more money to foreign countries as long as plants and jobs continue to leave the United States.
As for the dream mentioned by Friedman in his piece:
“If (the US) were in the process of converting to electric cars powered by nuclear, wind, domestic natural gas and solar power”
It will not happen simply because the United States is broke.
Cold War between US and China October 12, 2010Posted by hslu in China, Cold War, Global Affair, Military, Politics, Taiwan.
Tags: China's military, Cold War, Commander Cao, defense budget, Diaoyutai, F-16 C/D fighter jets, India, Japan, Japan-U.S. security treaty, New York Times, Senkakus, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam
1 comment so far
United States defense budget accounts for 46.5% of the total defense spending in the world.
But according to an article in New York Times, the United States is “alarmed by harsh tone of China’s military.”
The article maintained that “The Pentagon is worried that its increasingly tense relationship with the Chinese military owes itself in part to the rising leaders of Commander Cao’s generation, who, much more than the country’s military elders, view the United States as the enemy.”
The key words here are “in part” because what is not spelled out here are the military exercises that US navy have conducted with South Korea and Japan naval forces in recent months in and around China’s Yellow Sea and East China Sea under the pretense of teaching North Korea a lesson. They were intended to be a show of force to tell China that you are under our watch at all times.
During the recent Diaoyutai incident, the US has reiterated US’s position under Japan-U.S. security treaty to protect Japan if a military conflict erupted between China and Japan over this island even though the US does not necessarily agreed that the island belongs to Japan.
According to an article in New York Times,
The other problem is that, technically, the U.S. would be obliged to bail Japan out if there were a fight over the Senkakus. The U.S. doesn’t take a position on who owns the islands, but the specifies that the U.S. will help defend areas that Japan administers. And in 1972, when the U.S. handed Okinawa back to Japan, it agreed that Japan should administer the Senkakus. So we’re in the absurd position of being committed to help Japan fight a war over islands, even though we don’t agree that they are necessarily Japanese.
The US has in recent months accelerated shipments of military supplies and advance weaponry to Taiwan in the name of defending the small island against China’s military advance. Its clear intention was to use Taiwan as a pawn to block China’s expansion into Pacific Ocean with Taiwan acted as a willing partner. The US, however, has held back on the shipment of F-16 C/D fighter jets to Taiwan purely as a bargaining chip in dealing with China’s expansion economically and militarily.
The America also injected itself into the long standing territory dispute between Vietnam and China in South China Sea after decades of silence on this issue. Its Secretary of States and Secretary of Defense suddenly found Vietnam a friendly country with promises of providing Vietnam with nuclear technology and the construction of a nuclear reactor power plant in Vietnam, all in the name of protecting American’s national interests in South China Sea. What interest is the US talking about?
What’s really going on behind the close doors between US and Vietnam are secret discussions of setting up a permanent naval port in Vietnam for American’s navy ships in South China Sea.
On India, closer military cooperation between US and India was the primary objective of the high level visit by US defense secretary Robert Gates to India earlier this year. His goal was made very clear by his speech:
“In coming years, we look to India to be a partner and net provider of security in the Indian Ocean and beyond.”
Can you not clearly see the intention of the United States which is to block China’s expansion militarily and diplomatically? The United States looked for areas of dispute and potential conflicts between China and its neighbors. It then make itself a partner with China’s neighbors and in the process further divide Asia into two camps: China and everyone else.
How can China not seeing the US as a potential enemy given the diplomatic and military maneuver by the US in recent months?
What’s going to happen is an arm race in the region because every country is entitled to defend itself militarily. China will certainly do so to rid its “sick man of Asia” image once and for all. It is also likely that the pressure from the US will push China and Russia closer in the near future and the cold war will take on a new meaning before you know it.
The United States has 10 aircraft carriers and hundreds of naval ships cruising around the world every day. It has thousands of nuclear war heads and countless fighter jets in airbases all over the world. It has advance military technologies no other country can match in years or even decades.
But, what right does America have to object other country’s military expansion?
They do not, period.
The United States is exercising its military power over other countries for a simple reason: that’s all it has now!
The United States is losing the global war on energy as it imports 70% of its daily crude supply. The trend can not be reversed any time soon and the United States is sending $380 billion dollars to foreign countries every year. If you want to know what wealth transfer is all about just look at this amazing sum of money flowing from our pockets to oil-rich countries. Year after year! With no end in sight! The Iraq war cost the US $700 billion in nine years. We are giving away two Iraq wars every two years with some changes to spare!
The United States is losing the global war on economics as its morphs into a service centered economy.
The United States is losing the global war on capitalism as it moves slowly to socialism with national health care system. In the process, it will drags down its medical instrument industry and drug companies; two areas of innovation and research.
The United States is losing the global war on currency as US dollar is weakened by the introduction of Euro and renminbi within the next twenty years.
The United States is losing the global war on manufacture as new plants popping up all over the world except in the US.
The United States is fighting the global war of terrorism as more and more terrorists looking for ways to come to America as we speak. This global war on terrorism is America’s to lose because of increasing discrimination against Muslims in the US.
The only area that the United States is decades ahead of every one else is its military capability. But the paper tiger is struggling to hang on to its military might in order to exert influence in the world. But its military power is built on a house of cards because the United States is broke.
In short, the good times are gone for the United States. It may not be forever. But it is damn close!
The really sad thing about this is that the US has limited ways to get out of this malaise simply because of its enormous debt, federal deficit and trade deficit in the years to come.
9-24 and 9-18: 此一时彼一时 September 27, 2010Posted by hslu in China, Cold War, Global Affair.
Tags: 纸老虎, Diaoyu Island, 華北特殊化, 钓鱼岛事件, 蒙古軍政府, 長城抗戰, 马前卒, Japan, New York Times, paper tiger, Shenyang, South Manchuria Railway, Specialization of Northern China, Suemori Komoto, The Great Wall War, The He-Umezu Agreement, The Mongol Military Government, The Opium War, The sick men of Eastern Asia, 八年抗戰, 察哈尔, 彼一时, 战争鸦片, 梅津・何応欽協定, 此一时, 一二八事变, 东亚病夫, 九一八事变
add a comment
Japan Retreats With Release of Chinese Boat Captain
- 一二八事变 in 1932 resulting in forbidding China deploy its own troops in the city of Shanghai.
- 長城抗戰 “zhanf2 cheng2 kang4 zhan4″ “The Great Wall War” in 1933 which resulted in the occupation of the province of 熱河 “Rehe” by Japan.
“zhang2 cheng2 kang4 zhang4″ or defense of the Great Wall
- 華北特殊化 “hua2 bei3 te4 shu1 hua4″ or Specialization of Northern China which established several tribal governments in northern China friendly to the Japanese government.
“hua2 bei3 te4 shu1 hua4″
- The signing of The He-Umezu Agreement in 1935 demanding Kuomintang ceasing all political activities in and withdrawing all military forces from the province of Hebei 河北.
梅津・何応欽協定 “mei2 jing1 ・he2 ying4 qin1 xie2 ding4″
- The establishment of 蒙古軍政府 “meng2 gu3 jun1 zheng4 fu3″ or The Mongol Military Government by the Japanese government in the province of 察哈尔 “Cha1 ha1 er3″ in northern China on May 12, 1936,
All these humiliating incidents culminated into the invasion of China and the eight year war between China and Japan, the so-called
“八年抗戰.” “ba1 nian1 kang4 zhang4.”
Although the war ended in the total surrender of Japan to the Allied Forces, the preceding humiliating events left a bitter taste in my mouth as I learned recent histories of China when I was a small boy in the elementary school.
Obama has no vision: Krugman September 7, 2010Posted by hslu in Economics, Obama, Politics.
Tags: New York Times, Obama, Paul Krugman, prime rate, Reagan
You know Obama is in trouble when a hard left liberal such as New York Times Paul Krugman is on Sunday Talk show calling Obama “has had no vision.” No wonder Obama’s poll number has dropped like a rock. Even the liberals are publicly attacking him.
I was even more surprised to hear Krugman praising Reagan for leading the country down to a better path. As you might recall that when Reagan took office in 1981, the Prime rate was as high as 21.5% on December 19, 1980. With our first child coming, we had to buy a house and move out of the apartment. We almost bought a house in Carrollton with a 17% mortgage. We ended up assuming a FHA loan with a 13% interest rate. That was tough, believe me. Fortunately we had a conservative in the White House and the rest was history.
The Third Depression July 7, 2010Posted by hslu in Economics, Global Affair, Health Insurance, Obama, Politics, Small Business, Taxes.
Tags: deflationary traps, Democrats, Great Depression, New York Times, Obama, Op-Ed, Paul Krugman, private business, stimulus program, TARP, The Third Depression
add a comment
The Third Depression
Paul Krugman on June 27, 2010 in a New York Times Op-Ed page argued that we are in the early stage of a long lasting third depression.
He argues for more spending in time of economic slowdown and warned that austerity programs such as those adopted by Greece, Ireland, England and Germany and now considered in the U.S. Congress will lead to a Japan-style deflationary traps in the US and Europe. And tens of millions of unemployed workers will pay the price and remain unemployed for years.
In a word, he wanted to spend our way out of his look-more-like-the-Long-Depression depression. To be more precise, he wanted the government, not private sector, to spend our way out of what he called the third depression.
He didn’t say anything about incentives to the private business. He didn’t point out the enormous burden the U.S. government has added to the private sector in the form of a national health insurance program. He didn’t mention the TARP money benefited the financial firms on the Wall Street. He didn’t question the failed policy of withholding more than half of the $787 billion stimulus program money until 2011 and beyond. He conveniently avoided citing the example of Japan’s long depression during which the Japanese government initiated spending program after spending program since the early 1990’s but still failed to pop up its sagging economy. As a result, Japan is saddled with a national debt that’s more than 200+% of its GDP which Japanese has no hope of ever paying it off.
Instead, Krugman relied on the experience of Great Depression and urged Obama and Democrats to spend our tax money in inefficient, government-sponsored programs.
He wanted to dig a deeper hole first. It is the same liberal rhetoric all over again.
What this country needs right now are more company-friendly policies such as the repeal of Obama’s national health insurance law which will give the private sector more incentive to expand their businesses. The way it stands now, the private corporations will not hire any people because they still don’t know how this national health program will impact their bottom line. With that dark cloud over their heads, they will wait and hire nobody.
Krugman’s third depression will definitely come to reality if United States continues the liberal and Democrat’s tax and spend policy.
Tags: BP, Dutch skimmer ships, empty suit, Jones Act, New York Times, Nobel Prize, Obama, Steven Chu
1 comment so far
After the much anticipated address by the empty suit in the White House, I have a few questions for Obama:
Why wasn’t Jones Act waived?
Who recommended the rejection and why?
Where are the skimmer ships Dutch had offered?
Why did you reject assistance from foreign countries?
Are there more booms somewhere that the federal government can use?
Why did you reject the building of sand barriers to block oil from reaching the shore? And who made the recommendation and why?
Why did you keep reminding us that Steven Chu has a Nobel Prize? Nobel Prize in Physics is useless in dealing with oil spill. It is irrelevant. And where is he, anyway?
Are there on-going predictions of where oil is flowing to and, if there are, why can’t you order skimmer ships to position there to suck oil up when oil reaches there?
Are you purposely trying to make BP’s oil cleanup job more difficult by not offering critical assistance at a time when it was needed?
Are you trying to make this disaster worse than it should have been just to advance your liberal agenda such as a carbon tax which has no hope to pass in the Congress?
Do you work for all people of the United States or just the liberal base of your party?
Did you talk to the prime minister of England about this?
You blamed the previous administration and BP for the spill, did you say anything about your lack of leadership on this matter?
Whom are you being led by? Why didn’t you lead?
Did the boss of New York Times force you to give the Oval Office address?
Do you think you are partially responsible to the poor cleanup job so far?
Do you think you should pay for a portion of the damage?
What do you have to say to defend your poor leadership if BP sues you and your administration?
I need your answer this afternoon. You have two hours. You can give your answer in front of a national audience on CNN.
Main Street News Media against White House June 1, 2010Posted by hslu in Energy, Global Affair, Obama, Politics.
Tags: BP, Dana Milbank, Gulf of Mexico, main street news media, Maureen Dowd, New York Times, Obama, Oil Spill, top kill, Washington Post
add a comment
When the main street news media begins voicing their concerns about Obama’s lack of leadership is the time when the shit really hits the fan. The tide is turning and the main street news media is impatient. It has happened with the cleaning up effort in Alabama. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post and Maureen Dowd of the New York Times seemed to have turned against Obama instead of kissing his feet just a few weeks ago. Look for more criticism to come from the left for sure.
The United States is facing serious problems in many fronts and it appears that Obama administration showed no leadership and total incompetency in dealing with these problems. The competency of a president is judged by his ability to handle the 3 AM phone calls and how good he is in dealing with unexpected crisis.
But consider the following:
- Inept response from the U. S. on North Korea’s sinking of a South Korea battle ship;
- Inability to deal with North Korea’s hostile intention towards the South Korea;
- The rise of China’s military might: construction of air carriers and 5th generation of fighter jets;
- The eventuality of a nuclear Iran and the resulting unilateral preemptive military action from Israel;
- There is no end in sight on the military operation in Afghanistan;
- The sorry responses from the government on the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico;
- The elusiveness of Arab-Israel conflicts;
- The worsening situation of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill;
- Sky-high unemployment situation;
- The mounting national debt and deficits;
- The sorry state of the financial institutions on Wall Street;
Obama said on June 8th that he’ll stop the sea level from rising. He’ll see our planet to heal.It made very good sound bite but did anyone take his word seriously? What did he do to make that happen? Anyone who believed Obama should look into the mirror and see if there is a dummy there.
From all the indications and his speech on Gulf of Mexico oil spill, he tried very hard to distance himself from the oil spill diaster saying that it is BP’s responsibility. What he was trying to say between the lines was that it wasn’t my problem.
It has become his problem now with the failure of the Top Kill.
You said it the other day and I think it is a fair question to ask you: “Obama, have you plug that hole yet?”
You better soon because there are other crises to be dealt with. Please consult my list to get an idea of what they are.
China’s Currency Policy January 25, 2010Posted by hslu in China, Economics, Global Affair, Politics.
Tags: China’s Currency Policy, Krugman, New York Times, The Plaza Accord, Wharton’s
add a comment
China’s Currency Policy
I saw an article on January 21, 2010 by Wharton’s on Chinese currency policy which stated that, in the long run, it is beneficial to China if it allows RMB to float over time. New York Times’ Krugman also warmed that China’s currency is predatory.
I don’t think that’s a good idea.
Critics say that a fixed-currency policy makes Chinese goods artificially cheap on world markets; helps China grow its exports and reduce its unemployment rates. However, these critics argue that this is unfair to competitors in other countries. They say that people buy Chinese goods because it is cheap, not because it is the best.
China is doing that because China is looking after its own interests. And what’s wrong with that? Every country does the same thing.
The other argument against an artificially low currency is that it feeds into inflation. But the central bank can adjust the exchange rate when it sees fit if it deems a stronger RMB is necessary. Raise RMB’s value by 20 to 30% as suggested by many experts means that China’s exports will suffer resulting in higher unemployment rate in these industries. This may cause social upheaval which is highly undesirable when export has down by as much as 30+%.
Keeping RMB low also resulted in huge foreign currency reserves being held by the Chinese government. As such, it helped to lower the interest rate in the United States which stimulated American’s economy. Without a lower RMB, hence a lower interest rate, America’s economy will suffer even more than it has been in 2008 and 2009.
Some experts argued that a higher RMB will reduce trade surplus with the US and create America jobs. But Americans have to pay more for goods at Wal-Mart if RMB is allowed to strengthen. Is that what Americans really want?
I think the biggest reason why China didn’t want to float its currency is this:
Allowing RMB to float freely means that Chinese government has to hand the control of its currency to currency traders and foreign central banks. No matter how much foreign reserves a country has, it is hard to compete with currency traders to manipulate its currency on the open market.
Look at Japan, its currency is so strong it practically killed its export industries except a few that have dominated the world market such as auto, electronics and a few others. It can not compete in many other industries which partially contributed to its stagnant economy and higher unemployment rates during the past 20 years. Japan has limited options to change its currency in order to compete with foreign countries. In this regard, the U.S., British, France and Germany were the key architects who through coordinated effort (The Plaza Accord) forced Japanese Yen to strengthen in the early 1990’s.
As a result, the Japanese economy crushed in early 1990′s and has suffered its worst set back since after WWII till this date.
China is determined not to follow Japan’s footsteps.