Tag Archives: China

Former Australian Prime Minister says US v China debate is ‘infantile’

Posted by

0

Business leaders need to see beyond the “infantile” debate of a choice between China and the US when mapping Australia’s future economic success, says John Howard, in a view that has won support from senior Obama administration officials.

Yes infantile, and of course business leaders need to see beyond the debate, because, as Howard implies, there is only one choice, and that is North America.

North America, in its pivot towards the Indo-pacific is making sure Australia is making the right choice.

North America has Penetrated northern Australia with an Isolation of Marines and has Subverted the decision making (“Eliminating the dollar in trade will be the focus of Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s trip to Beijing next week.“) as the Australians take the promised 1.6 billion dollars needed to orient the US Marines towards an advantage in Australia. That advantage can be seen as a lever against China and Australia’s need to pivot away from American dollars.

Of course the outcome North America is hoping for is a Re-orientation of the Australians towards a more harmonious (Re-harmonise) relationship with the US dollar. This is pretty typical in a PISRR (Penetrate, Isolate, Subvert, Re-orient, and Re-harmonise) movement, as the Obama pivot narrative has become.

The dollar and the financial institutions that are built on the dollar are the main US advantages in the global environment. Not only is there an advantage for a consumer economy, such as the US economy, to be able to command goods in their own dollars, but the dollar is still  tied to the dominant military in the region, the US military. Once China and Australia begin dealing in the Chinese currency, I am sure the Chinese will want to replace the security of the US military with their own.

The dollar’s advantage is especially true in Australia where the Chinese have bought up most of the access to the wealth of Australia, if I am not mistaken, in US dollars.

For Australia to switch to a Chinese currency would be devastating to the US economy.

Like the drug-pusher making the first one free to assure a steady market for his supplies, the US has given China a good deal on those dollars they used to buy access to Australian wealth, with the hope that the Australians will continue to use dollars.

By threatening to cut the supply off, Australia has declared war against the biggest  pusher of US dollars, Wall Street. Lucky for Wall Street they have their own military, ha!

As all war is about economic considerations, and fought by people with little economic considerations, it is not surprising to me that there is much “infantile” debate going on.

via Former Australian Prime Minister says US v China debate is ‘infantile’ | China Daily Mail.

The Economics of the Indo-Pacific Pivot

Posted by

0

As I have said before, all war is about economic considerations and fought by people with few economic consideration.

Much has been said, in our pivot towards the Asian Pacific, about the people with few economic considerations.

We have heard about the saber-rattling of China in the disputed South China Sea and elsewhere.  This saber-rattling doesn’t really seem to be much about economics. Perhaps now is the time we need to talk about the economic considerations in the Pivot.

Basically, economically we are going to do for those nations under our Indo-Pacific pivot what we did for the Middle East. We are going to use our military to uphold the relevancy of the US dollar.

Perhaps the quip used by one of the characters in the movie “Tinker, Tailor,  Soldier,  Spy” can be used to clarify what I mean by “doing” to the Indo-Pacific what we did for the Middle East.

In the movie there was a change of leadership in the “Circus”. The Circus is where  the odd performers of the British secret service get together and put on a show for everyone else in the Service to see. The new Ringleader, to show his knowledge of how things are in the world made the statement that, “you can rent an Arab, but never buy one.”

I don’t know if that statement is true or not, but by literally throwing billions of dollars into the environment of Iraq, after our invasion,  we “rented” thousands of Arabs. (I know the dollars in my wallet are mainly there for me to rent. They never stay in my wallet long enough to actually own.)

In other words, economics is not just about interest (which collecting interest is not popular in most areas of the Middle East) but a strong economy also depends a great deal on whose hard currency runs the show.

While there were many reason made for going to war in Iraq, strategically it was in the US’s interest to make sure “petrol dollars” also meant the US dollar.

As many experts have said, the Iraq war wasn’t about the US grabbing Iraq’s oil. The US doesn’t get its oil from the Middle East. The oil coming out of the Middle East is mostly going to China and other developing nations.

But what is important,economically for the US is that whoever buys oil in the Middle East uses US dollars. The US economy depends on the fact that they do.

With Turkey threatening to join the EU, France heavily into buying oil from Saddam, and rumors of Russia and China making gold the currency for oil, the relevancy of the US dollar was disappearing. I suggest that is no longer true.

While all strategy is flawed, and there is an on-going civil war throughout the Middle East, in the most part the US currency is still “the” currency of the world.

My guess is that the US dollar is the most relevant it has ever been in the Middle East, but the same cannot be said in the Asian Pacific.

http://www.ibtimes.com/sorry-mates-strictly-business-australia-wants-cut-out-us-dollar-trade-china-1161287#

A 1.6 billion infusion of US dollars and an occupation of US Marines may counteract that train of thought.

Enduring Values

Posted by

0

I believe those were the words the guy in charge of Obama’s legacy used to describe the US military’s pivot towards, or what is now called, the “Indo-Pacific”.

The words used to describe the pivot was changed from “Asia-Pacific” to “Indo-Pacific”. The words were changed to highlight the most important partner in the area included in the pivot.

I believe the guy in charged used “enduring values” (if that was the correct quote) in his conversation about the  ”pivot”,  because a “pivot” with “enduring values” in its narrative has no change in momentum nor values.

The US military representing the values of the U.S.A isn’t turning towards the Pacific, because it never really left. All the US military needs to know is whose with them in this pivot.

In other words, in order for the US to pivot towards the Pacific, we don’t have to fight the momentum of changing values to get there. Our values are in the pivot, and they are highlighted in India.

So I guess the guy was basically saying “stuff it”, we are pivoting towards an area of the globe in which our values are the same as India’s and everyone else within the area of the Indo-Pacific Pivot.

For a nation such as the US, who are supposed to be sons of Abraham,  this is quite a big deal. For an area that owns most of our debt, it is a reassurance of the repaying of that debt.

I think this repaying of debt is going to surprize a bunch of people in the US, who thought nukes countered debt (rock over paper).

North Korea first.

.

Japan to order shooting down of N Korea missile

Posted by

0

TOKYO – Japan will order its armed forces to shoot down any North Korean missile headed towards its territory, press reports said Sunday as Pyongyang was reportedly readying to fire one.

If you are a gamer, such as the North and South Korean military seems to be, “headed towards” is a very big statement.

If the missile is flying over Japan and projected to land somewhere on the other side of Japan, then is it actually “heading towards” Japan?

Not really unless there is a failure in its propulsion system. Then Japan should shoot it down, if Korea is unable to destroy the missile itself.

You see the problem with Japan’s order is that force and mass in a distribution of energy are not necessarily related in direction. As the missile flies over Japan the force of gravity is towards Japan, but the mass of the missile is not “headed” towards Japan.

So if the Japanese destroys the missile flying over Japan, unless the propulsion system is not functioning correctly, they are not destroying a missile that is headed towards Japan, they are destroying a missile that is heading somewhere else.

As Gamers, North Korea would be obliged to retaliate against Japan, as Japan’s politicians enter the “game”.

Could it be that Japan’s politicians don’t understand that it’s a game? If they don’t, they should update quickly.

via Japan to order shooting down of N Korea missile.

Historical Military Provocations Prove North and South Korea Tolerance

Posted by

0

In 2010, a South Korean Island known as Yeonpyeong was struck by dozens of North Korean artillery shells. Two South Korean soldiers were killed and more than a dozen persons were injured. The atrocity raised international brows waiting for South Korea to retaliate.

Tolerance between each other, maybe, but I believe the North and South Korea have been gaming each other for years. So the tolerance is between players, but not in the situation each player finds themselves in. Each player has different relationship to the common environment.

China has always had a love for North Korea’s ability to control their people. But after 60 years of war, North Korea hasn’t changed much, but China has. It is this change in China that makes the “proof”  in provocations no longer valid.

China is moving the center of gravity of the Military Industrial Governmental Complex (MIGC), once centered in the US, to Asia. What a MIGC centered in Asia needs most is war.

In a Complex and to get rid of entropy that is inherited in the creation of the weapons of war, war is needed to simplify the environment the old Complex is moving towards and the environment the new Complex is moving away from.

So what China needs first and foremost is a war that will once and for all tranfer the center of gravity to Asia.

But China doesn’t need a war that involves the center gravity of old (USA and its allies).

A war that involves the US or its allies will not help in the new alignment. The alignment needs to be completed with precision and accuracy. War that involves the US or its allies will prove very sloppy.

In fact, because the outcome of war is an unknown,  what China needs now is a war that will not include the US, nor South Korea. What China needs now is a war with North Korea. I believe China is building up towards that goal.

In contrast, what North Korea needs now is help from South Korea to keep China from taking over the Korean peninsula, and creating another Hong Kong in the process.

South Korea is very nationalist and becoming another Hong Kong is something they will not take without a fight.

What North Korea needs now is the skills of a master gamer, and unite the peninsula under the Korean brand. It is yet to be seen if the Kim dynasty will be able to provide those skills.

If I am correct and things are heating up like they have never before, then it will be hard to see what is happening, unless you are a master gamer.

This is something the US military has not shown any skills in of late, and probably should just pass on.

via Kerry Patton: Historical Military Provocations Prove North and South Korea Tolerance.

Boehner memo hails GOP ‘tactical plan’ against Obama as success

Posted by

2

He also complimented Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s (R-Va.) “make life work” initiative, which is meant to showcase GOP ideas that will help working families.

But tactics are only successful if there is some kind of strategy behind them.

Strategy bridges the past and future by having a clear picture at both ends. Tactics, for any movement like the Republican Party, only works if there is a clear picture of where it has been and where it is going. Strategy supplies that picture, which tactics can’t. Tactics are short-term, so it is almost all past and no future.

If there is strategy behind the tactics that Boehner calls a success, then success depends on whose strategy the tactics are following. Is it the Republican strategy or Obama’s?

I think Boehner would have said so, if he thought the Republicans were following some kind of a winning strategy.

While the tactics Boehner underlines are successful, they might represent a losing strategy for the party that has labeled itself the “values” party.

Is it really family “values” to have a bill named “make life work”, on the floor of Congress? The title, if not the bill, seems to give more to Caesar than called for in a party claiming “family values”.

I mean the bill could be about how individuals should stop whining and pull themselves up by their boot straps and go to work. You know, make life work idiot!

Which is what a father would tell the young in the family.

But as The Daily Show said last night, can they do that with a warm smile?

In other words, does the Republican message come across as the rich telling the poor to “suck it up” (if that is even what the bill is about, because I don’t know the bill), or do they give it a human-type emotion.

So if these are not successful tactics for the Republicans are they successful for Obama?

Is it possible that these successful tactics of Boehner’s could be a part of Obama’s strategy to have the Republican name itself as a party in which work is your life, instead of highlighting what comes after work the family.

If this is Obama’s strategy, for the Republicans to name themselves the party of work instead of family, then perhaps Boehner is correct, they are successful tactics.

If this is the case, and the Republican Party is following the strategy of Obama, then I am not sure that the tactics of the Republican Party will be successful, for the Republican Party.

On the other hand, when I was young I thought that I didn’t want work to define me, but now as I grow old I am less sure. To me success now depends on how the society is structured, and how the culture fits that structure.

It is more obvious than ever to me that the U.S.A. is structured as the Right.

If the structure of your country matches the culture holding it up, then to me that means you have a successful country, a country successful in its past and future.

The Right, as a structure has a large normalizing force that controls the friction inside a society, and that normalizing force in America is becoming more corporate each year. I am beginning to believe that the culture in the USA is also beginning to match its structure.

I think there is a large push-back, but each year it gets harder for those wanting the U.S.A. to have a winning structure, either more as the Left or for God to be that normalizing force instead of Caesar.

Those with the losing strategy seems to be those pushing push against corporations (replacing God as the normalizing force) and those of the Right (replacing those on the Left without a normalizing force).

But then the Republican Party doesn’t apologize for being the party of Caesar or on the Right.

And there is no reason they should apologize  given BushII’s failed Crusade into the Middle East and the win by Obama as the structural leader, ha!

I remember watching a video out of Iraq which showed a US military commander in charge on the ground in Iraq rallying his troops with the slogan, “We are doing God’s work”.

I am sure the Persians said the same thing to the Greeks, as the Persians removed the Jews from Israel. Oh wait! That is exactly what they didn’t say.

It is what we said to the Chinese as the corporate Right removed Saddam from Iraq, and the Islamic Left replaced him.

Thanks Bush :)

Some kinda strategy, huh????

via Boehner memo hails GOP ‘tactical plan’ against Obama as success – The Hill’s On The Money.

Thomas P.M. Barnetts Globlogization – Blog – Why the next pope should be a Latino

Posted by

0

My fear with Benedict is that he retires so he can – in his typical control-freak fashion – determine his successor.  Lets hope its something more than personal ego at work here.

Well he almost came down in history as the pope to lose a Christian command of the largest military in the world today. Close enough that the Catholic leadership must have thought they had lost it much of election night. I know the churches here in my area supposedly told their parturition to vote for Romney.

The thing is both Africa and Latin America are producing very Conservative priests, at least to know what a Mormon in command of the US military would look like.

via Thomas P.M. Barnetts Globlogization – Blog – Why the next pope should be a Latino.

While my theory of a Mormon take-over of the US military might be slightly off (Ha!),  this piece from FP sounds about right.

“This time is different, the crisis is much deeper and more difficult to solve than it appears,” an Italian bishop with long experience in the Curia laments. “Catholics are deeply divided between a group of conservatives, constantly looking toward the past that will never come back, and progressives, who pushed themselves too far from any possible compromise with the other group. I don’t envy the next pope.”

Unlike Barnett’s analysis, just look: if the next pope is from Latin America or Africa it may be an indication of which direction the church is moving Conservative/Liberal.

In a time of war it is always Conservative.

via Vatican Insider – By Paolo Mastrolilli | Foreign Policy.

America the Home of the Brave?

Posted by

0

larrydunbar Says:

February 4th, 2013 at 4:35 pm

Step 1.Know yourself; Check.

Step 2. Know your enemy. Understand the advantage he/she has in the environment that you both share.

As an example, if the owner of Fox News is from Australia and an elite,  there is some not-so-small advantage in keeping the “Americans” stirred up all the time.

Unlike America, Australia is an island whose history shows that the inhabitants can’t defend.

A friend of the family was sent to Australia to up-root the Japanese that island-hopped their way down to Australia. He and his D8 Caterpillar dug the Japanese out of the sands, as he and the rest of America headed north.

But he also told, in his narrative, how little help he got from the Australians themselves.

Of course, as he writes, it was hard to find the Australians, they were too busy fighting in other parts of the world. I think what surprise him the most was how little civilian help they got in their effort.

But then, as history shows, even if every Australian had given their lives and resources fighting the Japanese, it would not have been enough.

During the war in the Pacific, it was towards the Austrian’s advantage for the U.S. to dig the Japanese out. Australia, negotiating from a position of strength, was and still is: too small, too little populated, and too isolated to defend using just the natives that live there.

China is buying up most of the island now (using US dollars), so the threat of violence, from an outside force, gives the Aussies an edge to work from. I am not saying that “stirring” is the function of Fox, but it, at the very least, looks like stirring is a good chunk of that function that might be supported by the elites.

As Americans and Gamers, stirring the “pot” is not really that hard, right?

So how about instead of trust have a heart, bud, as we move on to step 3 & 4?

via zenpundit.com » Blog Archive » America the Home of the Brave?.

Inauguration Day: Unclear strategy for an Obama legacy

Posted by

0

Persuading some centrist Republicans that their voters want them to be constructive. Their decision, after a retreat, to put off the clash over the debt ceiling could be a sign of this. But it is more likely simply so they can concentrate on a fight over spending.

Not “constructive”, destructive. Knowledge is destructive, and the voters want their Republicans to be knowledge based, which right now isn’t happening.

Republicans seem to think that the voters want their leaders to go against their word, and not pay for a debt we owe.

That is not a very good strategy. We basically went to war in the Middle East to keep the dollar relevant it today’s world.

If a relevant dollar was indeed, at least, one of the strategies for war, why would we want to counter that strategy with another? Especially when that “other” would mean going back on our word.

Wouldn’t going back on our word mean we have wasted that debt which was paid for by those wars?

While keeping those guys in the Middle East spending our money wasn’t the only reason we went to war, it must have been a sizable chunk of it.

We live in a consumer society. If we can’t consume anymore, because we don’t have the dollars, then we need someone to continue consuming, at least continue consuming our dollars.

The Native American were the first ones to learn that it’s never good to turn your back on  the world.

I mean, they seem to be back, but they went through some really destructive years.

So, yeah fellows, just keep playing around, we gotcha!

We will just pass on the free blankets, this time around.

via BBC News – Inauguration Day: Unclear strategy for an Obama legacy.

Unimaginable Statements and Signs of Surrender

Posted by

0

Brett Friedman said it best. “Can you imagine a USMC 4-Star ever saying “we’ll be unprepared’? Never”

Oh how we long for the days of the NeoCons, when what our generals said didn’t matter.

Perhaps Friedman should ask the General what we will be prepared for, because the General has obviously given that some great thought. That is what generals do; they think.

But more than just thinking, a general adds strategy to the thinking process and his/her strategy has two ends to think about and prepare for: the beginning of the end (which the General says we are not prepared) and the end of the end, which I am betting he is prepared for.

So either seek the advice of the general that tells you that “we’ll be unprepared”, or become a Republican :)

But on the other hand, if we somehow bite-the-bullet and Decide to Act according to how we are Oriented (we are a consumer economy) and pay for the debt that we have accrued in the world, perhaps we should take advantage of the environment that we have positioned ourselves in, and opt out.

We have positioned ourselves as a nation of great command, but little control. This is what the General is trying to tell you.

We are unable to fight a war against  a nation that is in control of what we want (cool electronic gadgets and games), while at the same time maintaining the demand for those products.

So we are unprepared for war.

At the same time, the advantage we have in the world is our ability  to move our culture in new directions, think  what Jazz, Blues, Rock and Roll, Rap, ect. has to offer.

This ability to create fast transits (OODA) is pissing many people off, and what the General is also  telling you is: we can’t afford to pay for this war against the generation of diversity while at the same time fighting a war against the generation of conformity.

This ability, to generate diversity in our cultures, upsets many people of many orientations.

The greatest Orientation that has been upset has been among our own culture–the Conservatives.

The Conservatives want to enforce conformity, to our past, because it is that Orientation that has been the most successful, in the past.

Unfortunately, the past is no more. We are a nation of command and what control the suppliers of our resources had over us is gone, in a mushroom cloud.

This ability of our culture to diversify does not set well for the party of our culture that demands control, i.e., Conservatives.

The Conservatives want to enforce the conformity of our past on the culture of those generations that are living in the future. These generations are called Liberals.

Liberals want to generate diversity that increase demands, unlike the culture of the Conservatives who want to decrease diversity, to conform to demand.

The problem being: the potential for both diversity and conformity is equal, and so the two structures, the left and Right are at war.

To generate diversity while at the same time enforce conformity will take some kind of strategy over the process, but I believe these two worlds can live together, it is doable.

It’s a game, and you all are invited.

via Information Dissemination: Unimaginable Statements and Signs of Surrender.