StanCollender'sCapitalGainsandGames Washington, Wall Street and Everything in Between



Winning the Future, or WTF, Again

13 Feb 2011
Posted by Andrew Samwick

In my reaction to President Obama's state of the union address, I wondered, "If we win the future, who loses?" and suggested that the analogy to a "Sputnik moment" was inappropriate.  In his New York Times column this weekend, Greg Mankiw makes a similar point, urging us to see "Emerging Markets as Partners, not Rivals."  The key excerpt:

Listening to the president, you might think that competition from China and other rapidly growing nations was one of the larger threats facing the United States. But the essence of economic exchange belies that description. Other nations are best viewed not as our competitors but as our trading partners. Partners are to be welcomed, not feared. As a general matter, their prosperity does not come at our expense.

To be sure, there are exceptions to this rule. When China uses our intellectual property such as software without paying for it, we should view that as a form of theft. And when other nations’ economic growth has side effects on the global environment, as it does when they emit the greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change, the United States has good reason for concern. But these limited exceptions should not blind us into taking a more generally adversarial approach to international economic relations.

Read the whole thing.

>>When China uses our

>>When China uses our intellectual property such as software without paying for it, we should view that as a form of theft>>

If I invent something and China manufacturers it cheaper without paying me, killing my business, it's theft. If I have a job building something and China manufacturers it cheaper, killing my job, is that theft?


Agree

But also we need to care about political risks.


WTO?

When China uses our intellectual property such as software without paying for it, we should view that as a form of theft."

What's the WTO for?

"And when other nations’ economic growth has side effects on the global environment, as it does when they emit the greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change, the United States has good reason for concern."

Please... Pollution is bad for health reasons alone. That's reason enough for new technologies in cleaner energy. Keeping the climate change myth alive is ridiculous.

You want clean energy? Let's start with nuclear and natural gas.


See, economics is easy! As

See, economics is easy! As Babinich notes, you can dismiss entire realms of science as myth.
*SlapHead*


win implies fear?

I watched a UCLA basketball game the other night. They were playing Oregon State. Now, I know that UCLA wanted to win, but I didn't notice that they were particularly afraid of OSU.

Republicans have been peddling fear as a political platform for two decades. Why is it a sign of fear when a Democratic president says we want to win?


what else WTF stands for

what the f--k, which I personally think could readily be applied to Obama's SOTU, and frankly politics in general at the Federal level. There's almost de nada real leadership but gigantic steaming "fragrant" heaps of politics on both sides




Recent comments


Advertising


Order from Amazon


Copyright

Creative Commons LicenseThe content of CapitalGainsandGames.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Need permissions beyond the scope of this license? Please submit a request here.