At RealClearWorld Daniel Blumenthal presents a side-by-side comparison of the United States and China. Here’s his conclusion:
Therefore, those who believe in an inevitable Chinese takeover of Asia may not be wholly wrong. But that is not because China is overtaking the United States in wealth generation; far from it. Rather, it is because Beijing is taking advantage of an American political system unwilling to deal with its fiscal problems and provide for the common defense against the country’s most challenging threats.
I think he’s over-estimating China and under-estimating us. I’m less concerned about China than he but mostly because I think it’s failing to deal with its own internal contradictions.
If he thinks fiscal problems (which I assume means the dreaded public debt) then he doesn’t know the first thing about what’s happening in China. Their public accounting makes ours look tidy because half their economy is basically a contingent liability of the state.
I can only imagine that the fiscal conservatives so put out by American finances would commit collective suicide if they were looking at how China operates.
I’m on the record as complaining about China’s banking system for the last 12 years. Since banking reform was China’s main assignment when it was admitted to the WTO 20 years ago, it should have been booted out long since.
Twelve years ago I was actually optimistic about China’s potential for handling its problems. Not so much now.
BTW, Ben, I’ve followed your attempt to promote debate in the thread about Obama’s speaking fees at OTB with some amusement. I continue to believe that it is possible to criticize Obama without being a racist Republican fascist but there are clearly a lot of people who don’t.
I used to believe the vast majority of posters @ OTB represented more of a left wing fringe attitude than that of traditional ‘liberalism.”. Now, with the Trump era in full swing, OTB’s rants, intolerance, and hypocritical rhetoric appears to be the mainstay behavior exercised by the Democrat party, period.
Very sad, indeed, that lively debate, human civility, and critical thinking have been so undermined at the feet of left wing promoted shreaking resistance.
I interpret their refusal to address the question as essentially guilt; they know what’s going on is wrong but will be damned before admitting it.
But this appears to be what liberalism has become and it is by no means just a few mean cranks at OTB. I’m well to the left of today’s progressives but at this point can have a more rational and civil conversation with a conservative, and have to conclude that going forward there’s no basis for cooperating with the orthodox Democrats. They’re too dogmatic to be reasoned with.
You’ve become an outlier, Ben, within your party. Hopefully, there will be more like you in the future. I remember when I used to post @ OTB, you and I philosophically disagreed, but it was conducted via constructive criticism and differing POVs. In this way you can oppose without alienating.
I doubt it. Guilt requires more self-awareness.
jan,
Thanks. You’ve always been easy to talk with and respectful of others.
Dave,
Ouch.
Actually, the defense of Obama’s speaking fees has been carried at OTB by people with direct, personal experience of speaking for money. No one has called anyone a racist. What we’ve said is that the notion that a 400k speech buys the loyalty of a guy with 12 million in the bank and a 65 million dollar book deal, is naive.
The fantasy world is here, not there.
Josh Barro, I think, makes the point you were trying to make here, Mr. Wolf. Here is the Matt Yglesias piece he references. So there are some Democrats speaking up.
In his Twitter feed Yglesias reminds people that the buckraking tradition is not very old at all, and that Obama is certainly in a financial position to put a halt to it for his part.
One asks again, where is the line between earning sufficient money for a comfortable, even luxurious, lifestyle and just keeping score.
Rats. Josh Barro is here:
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/25/15419740/obama-speaking-fee
Rat infestation:
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-wall-street-speaking-fees-2017-4
I’m curious what Trump’s price might be then, according to your reckoning Michael.
I agree that the dollar amount isn’t consequential- though if you put enough speeches together over the course of the next few years then pretty soon we’re talking real money even to a multimillionaire, and perhaps if Michelle has designs on political office it could be the start of a nice war chest.
But more importantly it was the market clearing price for influence, and significant in that it was more than Bill Clinton ever got.
I don’t think this has much to do with the private sector speaking fees you guys were discussing, and I think you know very well that it’s about the hypocrisy of the party that ostensibly represents the little guy but refuses to hold its leaders accountable for cashing in.
Nobody at OTB is talking about $400,000 a shot, Michael.
Good stuff from Josh Barro- very clearly stated. Thanks for the link, Janis.
CStanley:
It’ll be whatever someone wants to pay him, obviously. Once he’s out of office.
As has been rather patiently explained to Ben Wolf over at OTB, (because we generally like Ben) many of us give speeches for money (not 400k, needless to say) and there is never a quid pro quo. In fact, when I speak to audiences rather more impressionable than Cantor Fitz, I refuse to show the organizers my speech or the media that goes with it. I go right into schools, show them horrifying things and flat out tell them their history class is boring bullshit. Ditto any and all writing classes. I also tell them I’m a high school drop-out who now drives a Mercedes. I can actually hear the teachers’ sphincters tightening.
In other words, the fee they pay me buys my presence. That’s it. I say what I feel like saying – though I do try to avoid dropping any F-bombs.
Ben’s point appears to be that payments made to Obama now send a ‘message’ to all future presidents that they too can give lucrative speeches.
Well, no shit genius. Cantor Fitzgerald would pay Bernie Sanders to come and berate them if they thought it helped their corporate image and put butts in seats. Anyone who qualifies as a celebrity (including G level people like me) can get paid to appear and give a speech. All presidents are by definition celebrities, therefore all presidents can give paid speeches. Let’s put it in the form of a syllogism:
All celebrities attract attention.
All event organizers want attention and are willing to pay for it.
Therefore all celebrities can give speeches for money.
The message that Ben is so anxious to learn is this: it pays to be famous.
Duh.
Janis:
Money is relative. 400k to a man with 12 million in the bank and a 65 million dollar book deal is roughly the equivalent of maybe five grand to me. Which is roughly the equivalent of a 20 dollar tip back when I was waiting tables. Which is roughly the same as finding a quarter in a phone booth change slot when I was on the streets.
It’s nice, don’t get me wrong, I like me some money, but it’s not going to change my life. It’s not even going to get me to sit down and have lunch with you after the speech.
The relativity of fees to personal wealth is what I was getting at regarding Trump. A lot of people who support him felt it was a plus that he is unlikely to have much interest in currying favor with entities that might offer him those kinds of fees.
I think the argument made by Barro is more persuasive than the one Ben put forth. The point is that liberals now have zero credibility on their signature issue because it’s obvious they will be dealing with their own future prospects of wealth when business comes before them. Oh, but I guess I forgot, liberals are the virtuous ones so they would never let that conflict of interest affect their policy positions.
Michael, you don’t know what 400k means to Obama any more than I do. Face it, it’s a nice chunk of change and totally incomparable to your five grand. Your five grand won’t even pay your rent for a month.
CStanley:
Well, this liberal voted twice to raise his own taxes – Obama and Jerry Brown. And if you go to OTB you’ll find a number of similarly lucky liberals who still think we should pay more. I’m sorry, but liberals are not conservatives, we do actually have principles, we don’t just toss our beliefs out the window in return for a check.
There is no moral equivalency between people who grasp for every penny regardless of who suffers (Republicans), and people who willingly contribute to support the country they live in (Democrats).
Janis:
When I was a working stiff I might have agreed. But you’re just wrong. I get checks for various thousands of dollars more or less every week from some random foreign rights deal I’ve forgotten about, (Bulgaria? Really?) or from an audiobook deal or whatever, and they sit on the kitchen counter for weeks before we get around to depositing them.
Normal humans with money soon reach a sort of saturation point where all their desires are being met and the value of the money declines. All money. Even big checks, let alone the chickenshit. All I can do with more at this point is dump it in TD Ameritrade. It stops being life or death like it was when I was a working man.
Now, granted Republicans never lose their desperate need for more, more, more, but normal humans don’t really have that same open-ended greed. If anything the example I gave understates the change because there have been times when a 20 dollar tip was the difference between keeping the lights on, and not. There were times (this is literally true) when finding a quarter meant I could get two day-old donuts and that would be my main meal. There is no equivalent in my life now. Give me five grand, don’t give me five grand, what the fuck do I care? My lights are on, and I have all the donuts I want.
Barro and Yglesias both point out that symbolism matters. Ex-presidents are not private citizens, bless their hearts. Doesn’t matter whether they pay taxes on the money or not.
Michael, I can’t determine whether you’re really so innocent ad to think think any of this is about speaking fees.
I don’t really care about Pres. Obama’s speaking fees and I am not surprised that a big Wall Street firm would hire him, nor am I surprised that he accepted despite being a political frenemy of Wall Street. I only wonder if there was any bartering involved and what the opening offers were.
LOL, yes the Clintons were such normal folk who clearly had enough to money to meet their needs and just wanted to be public servants, not like those greedy GOP bastards!
Ben:
No one has yet been able to figure out just what secret insight you think you have, dude, so yeah, it’s about the money. And yeah, celebrity = cash. If you have some deeper insight maybe you could share it with the rest of the class.
The disconnect is why we should accept politicians behaving like celebrities. Does that serve the public interest in any way?
I doubt that there was a conversation between Bush, Clinton or Obama with the banks while they were in office. I think it is just an understanding before you take office that someone will pay you a lot of money to come talk when you leave office. I think it just demonstrates the way too close relationship that the wealthy have have with the people who run our country.
Steve
“I think it just demonstrates the way too close relationship that the wealthy have have with the people who run our country.”
Bingo!
“The disconnect is why we should accept politicians behaving like celebrities.”
And you’re not experiencing any disconnect re a celebrity trying to act like a president?
How does one be president without becoming famous?
100% of presidents are by definition, celebrities. 100% of ex-presidents can therefore give speeches and get paid. That will include Trump – though of course he’s not waiting to cash in, he’s taking Chinese and Russian and Arab money hand over fist while still in office.
But of course that’s not the problem.
Nor is the fact that Michael Flynn was warned by the Pentagon and by his personal friends, not to take Putin’s money, did it anyway, and then lied about it. About which Dave has had basically nothing to say, other than rebroadcasting a lie about Susan Rice that even Republicans have now shot down.
No, the problem is ex-president Obama is giving a speech.
Motes and beams, people, motes and beams.
And you’re not experiencing any disconnect re a celebrity trying to act like a president?
On what evidence do you assume that I’m not?
No, it’s not, Michael. It’s about the influence of money in politics. Obama is the subject of this discussion because he’s the last Democratic ex-president.
You’ve taken your position based on the latest evaluation of his projected worth. But when Obama entered the White House he wasn’t worth whatever it will come to after taxes. According to this article he was worth about $5 mil on the low side in 2011. But when he entered office estimates run around $1.3 mil. You’d have to admit 400k would look better then.
Mark Cuban says he tends to like people who give him money. My inclination is the same.
That’s not to say that prospects influenced Obama’s policy, but the potential was there, and will continue to be there for whoever occupies the office. Think campaign contributions.
That’s what the writers are trying to get across. You’ve made the point over and over in this thread that 400k should mean peanuts to a person with his coming wealth. Then he could leave it on the table and escape the whiff of influence.
Personally, I don’t care if he gets as rich as Oprah.
“Nor is the fact that Michael Flynn was warned by the Pentagon and by his personal friends, not to take Putin’s money, did it anyway, and then lied about it. ”
This is actually very serious. To add a bit of context, people with high level security clearances not only have to sign an NDA, but in recent years have had to sign post-employment agreements that prevent any kind of foreign employment or compensation for a period of time after leaving government service. My agreement, for example, is or two years. If Flynn signed one of these agreements he could be in some serious legal trouble, but this is a relatively new thing – the first one I saw (the one that I signed) was in late 2015 and then in early 2016 I went through the drudgery coordinating signatures for the rest of the organization I supported.
I agree that it’s serious. It’s also being investigated. The due process of law appears to be being followed.