After five months and seven rounds of contentious negotiations, the Bush administration and the American textile lobby got what they wanted: a cap on China’s booming export business in the sensitive trade. The agreement sets quotas ( or “safeguards ” in security speak) for nearly half of the Chinese textile exports to America, such as bras, baby socks, bath towels, wool suits, window shades, etc.. Thus are American consumers protected from the presumed disaster of paying too little for these essentials of life. But the US textile industry will still decline. FULL ARTICLE
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/4494/bush-battles-the-chinese-sock-threat/
Bush Battles the Chinese Sock Threat
Previous post: The Quagmire of Intellectual Property
Next post: Awards for 2005
{ 65 comments }
← Previous Comments
Thanks for that Gene.
Gene
The US, especially under the Roosevelt regime did everything possible to provoke the Japanese government into hostilities. Franklin was desperate to get into a war one way or another. He succeeded. Nevertheless it was a war that could (& should) have been avoided.
As far as Japanese involvement in Manchuria, China and Korea is concerned; who gave them the carte blanche to invade in the first place? Who traded a “right” for them to so do? Remember it was an earlier president of the US that brokered the deal to make all those places part of the Japanese sphere of influence. The Japanese government was given the green light to proceed as they might and did. In the light of this it is clear the USA govt. did not enter WW2 to defend people against an oppression in which it had been complicit. Defending people against aggression may have been a motivational factor for some of the individual combatants (as was adventure, state worship, ignorance, belief in propaganda etc.) or it may have been a justification after the fact (after the war a lot of people were looking to explain what had occurred, what they had done and why- rationalising). It was not the reason for the commencement of inter-govt. hostilities. What can be concluded is the corrupt, immoral actions of governments (US as well as Japanese and others) resulted in war.
With regards to defence preparedness; you’ll find that the foreign policy of the USA has very commonly been directed otherwise. It is not unknown for the USA to have been the aggressor and a ruthless oppressor of other peoples. It’s about time the citizens of the US complained to their overlords about this. Some do, but the vast majority of others stay silent and go along with it (as is their patriotic duty they never protest while the soldiers are marching, at least not until a war goes wrong and is “lost”). Complicit indeed.
Quoting: “Further, to the extent that such pacifists are employed in the production and non-combative support of aggressors without resistance to or sabotage of those aggressors’ efforts, they should not be surprised to find themselves viewed–by those actively defending against such aggression–as somewhat complicit
in the aggression itself.”
Now consider, this is similar to arguments delivered on TV a while back by a certain bin Laden character when referring to the people of the United States. Not good. Not good at all. It is a dangerous viewpoint that can cut both ways. One should be very careful with such sentiments.
Last point: Self-defence is justifiable. There is a rigorous standard of objective honesty required in respect to the issue.
Sione
Sione:
“The U.S.” had nothing whatever to do with Japanese expansionism, whether in Korea, Manchuria, or in China proper. As a matter of fact, your response is the very first mention I’ve heard in my entire life (pushin’ 70) to the effect.
Korea became, essentially a Japanese possession (whether a colony, a protectorate, a mandate, I have no inkling) as the result of a decision in their favor (in contention with Russia) made by the institution of the time that I believe was called the World Court. Theodore Roosevelt was the presiding magistrate at the time (the office rotated) but that is the only American involvement in the affair of which I have ever heard. Both parties claimed hegemony, I believe, on account of failure of the Korean regime of the day to provide law and order in the territory (in
affording protection to their nation’s respective investments).
I don’t mean to be hypercritical but you’re a bit fast and loose with aspersions, I’m bound to say. I made a simple statement about sentiments that pacifists are likely to encounter among those actively defending against aggression, not some expression of my own view of pacifist behavior, a matter entirely irrelevant. And, if you actually believe self-defense is justifiable, you should have no trouble in appreciating that those who choose to be uninvolved in the hostilities must take care to observe, in their behavior, what any actual combatants must interpret as neutrality with regard to both the matters of contention as well as the actual conflict. That means not only not willingly assisting either combatant but also exerting reasonable effort, including the exercise of violence, to defend the right to remain uninvolved (something most advocates of unconditional pacifism might be unwilling to do). Under long-established international laws, neutrals must intercept and detain, to the best of their abilities, ships of either belligerent party, other agents of the same, and goods and cargoes of whatever sort from or through their territory bound for one or another belligerent. There are no such laws applying to ordinary individuals but, to the extent that such individuals’ activities benefit a particular belligerent, it should be no surprise to them if that belligerent’s opponents consider them, to some degree, as enemy forces.
I am also curious about all the efforts to which you allude on the part of FDR to get us into a war with Japan. I’m aware that we enforced an embargo against them but to the best of my knowledge that was on account of their unprovoked attacks on the Asian mainland and the great likelihood that the Japanese-announced “Greater Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” directly threatened our semi-proprietary interest in the Philippines and those of more or less established European interests such as Dutch East Indies, Singapore, Hong Kong, Macao, etc. (not to mention Australia and New Zealand). Most nations that are “desperate” to go to war have, by the time that they actually enter into any hostilities, spent years building up their stores of the implements of war and the training of forces, neither of which processes was much in evidence in the U.S. of the period.
Gene quotes Mises;
“In a world of unswerving aggressors and enslavers, integral unconditional pacifism is tantamount to unconditional surrender to the most ruthless oppressors.”
I defended the antiwar position common to most libertarians as completely opposed to pacifism here;
http://www.libertyguys.org/articles/detail.asp?ArtID=973
I essentially expanded on Yamamato’s point, that the American people (at the time of WWII) were still free and armed, and that such a free people would defend their territory so fiercely that one of the world’s mightiest military machines needn’t bother to try to invade it. Just because we are anti-war it does not mean we are anti-defense – much, much to the contrary.
Unfortunately, with each passing year, due to the advent of the professional military ( along with its paid mercenaries) and politicians’ fears of an armed populace driving the confiscation of effective weapons of defense, our ability to mount an effective defense fades. Mises was indeed right – but possibly not in a way he would have predicted.
Gene asserts;
” Most nations that are “desperate” to go to war have, by the time that they actually enter into any hostilities, spent years building up their stores of the implements of war and the training of forces, neither of which processes was much in evidence in the U.S. of the period.”
What do you call our government’s support of the Flying Tigers, “Lend-Lease”, Roosevelt’s frequent declaimations of the US as the “Arsenal of Democracy”, and the deliberate provocation of Japan coupled with a conspicuously inadequate preparedness at Pearl Harbor in the period where the inevitability of an attack was obvious to any sentient being or potted plant. Your statement has no validity. Roosevelt did everything but pilot a Zero over Hawaii to get us into the war, despite the wishes of the majority of voters.
Gene,
Have you read Stinnett’s “Day of Deceit”? It’s something else. In another manner of speaking, so was FDR.
Vince:
First off, you’ll have to pardon me for not having a store of citations and “proofs” of some version of reality with which to combat that cobbled together by revisionist historians and sensationalist authors two generations after the events being considered. Sure, we know that folks are fooled even in real-time, whether through error or design. But those who (as I) have no interest whatever in manipulating historical data to support one or another view of either history or political ideology tend to focus more on what evidence they are able to gather themselves from that presented to their senses during the course of their lives. Those who happen to have inherited cognitive abilities anywhere in the vicinity of the right-hand portion of the bell curve should have discovered, if only from study of their own behavior, that a great part of the behavior of everyone consists in deceptions of one sort or another and, conversely, in detecting such deception by others directed toward themselves. In saying that, I make no judgment but merely describe universal reality. And anyone who (pretends to) disagree with me on that matter–is a man who wants to sell you something.
What I want to impress on you (and others) is that each of the various sources to which you repair for support of one or another thesis has, in the main, been carefully constructed of bits and pieces of “evidence” which, taken together, are persuasive to the extent of the author’s skills. It’s not all one giant “con” job–indeed, many of those exercising discretion over which bits and pieces to consider and which to discard are, themselves, quite persuaded of the validity of their theses, in which case their “honest” convictions may underlie deceptive construction.
Let’s take a few examples. You (Vince) impugn my questioning of US “desperation” (to go to war) by reference to Lend-lease and the Flying Tigers. The former is more supportive of my own impression (that we were not “desperate” in the sense of going to some unjustifiable war) in that it only began in the same year as that in which we were (later) attacked at Pearl Harbor. Again, my general impression is that people who have as obvious an agenda as you suppose are generally active in that direction far earlier. Insofar as is concerned the idea that Pearl Harbor was left vulnerable deliberately so that we would suffer a devastating attack, it’s my belief that that story is a simple canard, constructed entirely after the fact. At the time, though we might have been a “sleeping giant,” we weren’t really sleeping at Pearl Harbor (though, in hindsight, we could have been even more awake). We were perfectly aware that our embargo had brought us to the brink; we were aware of (and intercepting some) espionage by Japanese in Hawaii regarding ship movements, etc.; and we had maintained continuous air surveillance of the Japanese fleet. They were engaged in maneuvers or exercises quite some distance north and west of Hawaii and, after quite some time, the surveillance was discontinued AT THE ORDER OF THE HAWAIIAN COMMAND (and there has never been any attempt by those responsible to lay blame on the White House or to maintain that they had been “following orders” in relaxing their vigilance). As Robert Burns said, Vince, “Despite the best-laid plans of mice and men, shit happens.” And those who don’t understand that elementary truth will forever be ready to buy the fine-spun yarns of conspiracy weavers. Maybe you could even surmise that we sent Howard Hughes with his Zero to the Japanese so they’d get an unwarranted boost in confidence, eh? Or got that famous architect (forget his name at the moment) to do their earthquake-resistant buildings so they’d get the idea they could take a bit of bombing all in a day’s work? As a matter of fact, the Okies who poured into CA from “dust bowl” days and during the depression were full of stories about how the very successful Japanese
(mostly laborers and small farmers) there were the advance force of an invasion (forget that the cornerstone of Mitsubishi Bank in Gardena–near LA–reads “1870″–just proves they were planning their invasion a lot longer than we knew.)
I don’t know much about Chennault and the Flying Tigers being “American involvement.” He was no major military figure of the time. As a matter of fact, he wasn’t even a major–he was a captain–and he had already been retired from our (then) Army Air Corps and gone to work for Chiang’s government. And I wouldn’t be surprised if he had some Americans helping him to try getting China’s air defenses modernized and able to deal with their invaders. There are always adventure-seekers and mercenaries with a variety of motivations. That doesn’t add up to much in the way of US involvement.
And, by the way–my previous, to which you now respond,, was not directed at you, but to Sione
Vatu, who, I felt, had (either deliberately or inadvertantly) mischaracterized what I’d written previously and seen my position as dangerously close to that of Bin Laden & Co. As a matter of fact, Bin Laden and I do agree on the basic idea that, if defense against violent aggressors is required, it may also be required against the technically non-violent whose activities materially enable my tormentor and who do not exercise themselves to reduce such contribution to my torment. The difference is that Bin Laden et al are virtual lunatics and see enemies almost everywhere they look while I am not and see very few anywhere. I hope that eases Sione’s concerns about my morals somewhat but, hey–you never know, I could be lying!
Paul Edwards:
I appreciate the recommendation but I no longer read much of anything (present company excepted).
I quit reading fiction nearly 60 years ago. Of course, had to read a few pieces in school but that’s about it. (Oddly, I very recently learned that Reagan made the very same decision later in life–about the time he became gov of CA.)
I quit reading newspapers, magazines and other periodicals in 1980 and, as I’m fond of saying, have been “clean and sober” ever since.
I quit fiction simply because I read so much it constituted a conflict with outdoor activities.
I quit reading the news, mags, etc. because I decided it was a virtually impossible task to filter out all the misinformation with which those vehicles are loaded (whether by design or through ignorance).
I used to read a book now and again. In 1971, I read HOW TO PROFIT FROM THE COMING DEVALUATION by Harry Browne on the recommendation of a friend, who found a similarity in that with certain ideas I had expressed, somewhat intuitively. Both that friend and I were both impressed that Browne was “coming from” some more completely-organized theoretical underpinning and so, quickly found Von Mises in the bibliography. That was my first contact with Economics and I gradually read everything he’d written (of which I could learn).
Desultorially, I’ve read stuff by others in the field but usually not completely. Those not of the Austrian school lack rigor; those in the Austrian school are frequently just reinforcements or rewordings of that Mises had already treated as comprehensively as (I felt) necessary. I subscribe to FEE but rarely read through a single complete piece in an issue–maybe a couple or three in a year, though I tend to read the book reviews a bit more thoroughly–looking for a hint of novelty, I suppose. No luck so far.
I still read a bunch–just not books. I read Abiola Lapite’s blog at least daily. He’s one of the most multidisciplinary intellects I’ve ever encountered; to call him “versatile” would be damnation by faint praise. I read (again, at least daily) the many-faceted blog of John Jay Ray (Dissecting Leftism), which, in addition to essays of his own, is an ably-filtered collection from over the world on a timely basis. I read an occasional piece at TCS and, for some time had a “subscription” to a daily-selected piece from a wide selection of sources, frequently featuring columns by Steyn, Dalrymple, and others. Unfortunately, the “Oompah of Tympanium,” who performed that (free) service “up and died” just about a month ago.
A fair proportion of what gets on the Mises.org site is worth reading. I’d guess 20%, maybe a bit more. And, of course, an even greater proportion is actually “worth it”–just not to me because certain subjects aren’t very interesting to me.
Over at Lew’s site, well–that’s Lew’s site and that’s ’nuff said except that I never miss what Gary North has to say about anything nor, for that matter, Joe Sobran or Lew himself. I find very frequent disagreement with all of those–but they’re all worth reading.
Gene
As the Matai would say to all, “There is no excuse for wilful ignorance. Wilful ignorance is contempt for the World.”
Clearly, you need to undertake more reading. Much, much more.
Start your reading by researching the treaty brokered between the Russians and the Japanese by Roosevelt (not the cripple, the adventurer). Note the side deals he negotiated between the US govt. and their Japanese opposites. There are the permissions and recognitions you seek. There is the green light to which I referred. You’ll then be able to gain an appreciation of the Japanese govt. (vermin they were) perspective and why they interpreted subsequent US govt. foreign policy activity as aggressive, untrustworthy and provocative. These deals were similar to mob bosses carving up territories for plunder.
Roosevelt (the cripple) certainly did try anything he could to get into a war, any war (he tried provoking the Germans as well as the Japanese). That has all been well and truly recorded and the case is well presented from a variety of sources. There are some fine books available. Read them. Check. Check again. In other words, do your prep.
As far as fast and loose with aspersion is concerned; remember it was you who made assertions about what my position was, relating to the unjustifiability of war, after reading but one post! Remember it was you dismissed Murray Rothbard, claiming he made a key error of economics, after reading but one part of one of his books. Outstanding!
The argument you render in the post above (directed to Vince although you include “others”) is, at basis, an argument against certain knowledge. Among other things it includes a variant of the old appeal “you can’t know for certain.” In this case, the assertion is that people can’t rely on information provided by the scholarship of others since no-one can be trusted not to have vested interest in providing it. So we can’t “know” because we can’t trust anyone to provide truth, necessarily they won’t. Everything is reduced to a matter of ideology. This is a socialist construct which rapidly descends into ad hominem of one sort or another. For example, the idea that anyone who disagrees with you is out to “sell” something- as if selling is necessarily dishonourable. That really is a contemptible line. They may be trying to “sell” you the truth. I trust you don’t really subscribe to that approach at all. It would be beneath you.
Having stated that people can’t be trusted to provide the truth you promote your bare opinion as reliable truth. That’s consistent! In the light of this I rather enjoyed your later comment, ” you never know, I could be lying!” Indeed.
It really is all too easy to deceive people in real time. Often it is only subsequent research, investigation and scholarship that reveals the truth. A recent example would be the claims of Iraqi WMD made by President G W Bush, General C Powell (who even promoted it to the UN), C Rice, D Cheney, D Rumsfeld and others. The vast majority of people in the USA accepted these claims as correct (from recent polls it would appear many still do). It is only relatively recently that the WMD claims are being revealed to be unreliable and false. One would expect further research to eventually reveal who produced the misinformation and why they did so. That may take years. Similarly, understanding the events leading up to WW2 requires studious research and distribution of the results. In this light, your dismissal of information revealed by solid research, investigation and scholarship is short-sighted and naive. The alternative is to accept your omniscience (the omniscience of a man who avoids or minimises his reading- are you really like this?).
You have confirmed that you share with bin Laden the idea that non-combatants are fair targets for war (that is, violence). The justification offered is they may be identified as giving support to the “enemy” in some fashion. That sets them up as enemies and initiations of force against them are thus permissible. This nonsense is the principle behind total war. In effect, “If you’re not for us you’re against us.” In such a case there can be no innocents. ALL can be justified as legitimate targets.
Digressing; with regard to pacifists, I understand some of these people to have been most principled and possessors of great integrity and courage. Many would have understood the distinction between war and self-defence.
Returning to that murderous bin Laden. Thousands of New York office workers, firemen, traders, police officers, caterers, maintenance men, administrators etc. were killed. For what? He says they were supporting invasions, aggressions and oppression directed against Muslims. Until America (that is, the US govt.) ceases these actions, he threatens, Americans (he means citizens of the USA) are all fair game to be murdered by his acolytes. This is an example of an application of your argument. Of course Laden is in good company (not). The list of people who subscribed to the idea is full of the famous and the powerful (yet more vermin). You should undertake a little more reading about the history of the last century. What did this idea lead to? What was the result? Not good. Not good at all.
And you finish one post by suggesting you may be telling lies after all. Applied to your views on knowledge and a circular argument is the result. Goodness! Gracious!
Sione
PS You remain silent about your friend and the war. Obviously he should not have been involved with war. What he got was injury, suffering and wasted time. That about says all anyone needs to know about warfare. It is waste. Not gain. That was the moral of the story.
Paul
re Stinnett’s “Day of Deceit”
Just received a copy. Will check it out.
Sione
Gene,
I’ll cop to ineffective use of a couple of lame examples. More of a function of my circumstances at the time (late, sick, posting on a PDA). I owe it to you and everybody to cite more carefully.
The reason, however, that support for the imperial Roosevelt thesis is, as you term it “bits and pieces” is that Roosevelt had the power to shape both the events and the recounting of the history, making the official story all but unassailable. It takes time, and hard work to tease out the threads of truth and weave them into a coherent revision. And I recognize that there are plenty of cranks out there. But even some ranking members of the Pacific command came out later with a version of the Pearl Harbor story that contrasts starkly with the received version and sheds legitimate doubt on Roosevelt’s intentions. And please, don’t give me any bull about no proof of Roosevelt complicity in the attack (or, more correctly, the lack of preparedness – I stipulated he did NOT pilot a Zero, LOL). Even such geniuses as Mayor John Street and George Bush Junior know how to play the insulation game.
Anyway, fair critique – I will do a better job next time!
Sione,
I think you’ll appreciate it. If ever there is a case to be made that FDR engineered the Pearl Harbor attack and the US entry into WWII when the American public was against another foreign entanglement, Stinnett makes it. The evil and devious nature of some of the “greatest” politicians of recent history is almost beyond belief. But the facts are there and they’re pretty incriminating.
Sione,
In reading your further posts, i think not all of it will be too surprising to you at all. But it will confirm what you already seem to know and perhaps fill in some further detail.
Vince:
I don’t mean to accuse (or diagnose) you as “going off the deep end” but there are several points you raise that drift in that direction.
The first is finding something unique in Roosevelt’s position as not only in being in position to influence events but also to manage current accounts of that influence. I do not dispute that in the slightest, simply pointing out that that is the USUAL, the prevailing case in all such matters under discussion. It is also a given (in this case, by me) that people in such positions and connected to such events frequently have more complicated motives for that which they do than those made generally public; further, that such people also frequently use various subterfuges to disguise what they believe or do and “manage” public opinion by with-holding of material data, by falsification of events and sequences, etc. All these are “given” and, in my opinion, as generally understood, if not by absolutely everyone, at least by most of the sentient (let alone sapient). To believe otherwise is tantamount to the elevation of one’s
self to a group of some imaginary ultra-cognoscenti. It ain’t a fact, Jack! (er-I mean Vince).
One of the principal reasons to doubt that such nefarious motivations and deeds can be brought off with such spectacular success is to be found in the observation (by Mises, as a matter of fact–who woulda thunkit?) that, “wherever there are interests pro, there are always interests con.” There is also the reality (undisputed by all excerpt the most devoted conspiracy theorists) that the larger and more complex the elements of a conspiracy and the more people involved in its successful execution, the greater the likelihood that at least some of the details will become noised abroad (leaked) NOT years, decades, and generations after the facts but current (and sometimes even preceding) the events considered.
Part of appreciating the motivations and methods of others lies in making comparisons with what is known of the specific “personae,” to the extent it can be known, to that of others, including our own. The further such behavior is from what would be considered normal in ourselves or others known to us, the less likely is that interpretation of behavior to be as represented and the more likely to be the result likely to be the result of some error–whether merely political (or other) opposition or a manifestation of
“fevered imagination.”
The fact is that, although Roosevelt was immensely popular during his time, he was not without opposition, even bitter political enemies. These were generally able people, even if not quite able to capture the majority necessary to keep Roosevelt from the presidency. Guys like Loeb (Manchester Guardian, I recollect) come to mind. And De Witt Wallace (owner of the Reader’s Digest and a Taft stalwart). These were guys with public access and there were many like others. All deceived? All incapable of suspecting and seeking evidence for Mafia-like intrigue? All intimidated by FDR popularity or the recipients of veiled threats? Gimme a break.
Just how many people are you acquainted with who would have arranged the provocations to which you refer and then act to insure the greatest effect by arrangements to insure vulnerability of the entire Pacific fleet, not to mention the lives of so many, both military and civilian?
I can’t help it if there is a market for revision and “secret conspiracy” stuff but there is. And there are conspiracies throughout human affairs and there is need for continuous revision of historical understanding, especially as new evidence is unearthed or new understandings or better theories cast doubt on the former. What is indispensible throughout is common sense, not its suspension.
What might be instructive is the story of “fucking the neck wound.” Haven’t heard about that one? Remind me sometime and I’ll tell you about it.
Interesting topic. To shed more light on it, a new book I just read is a must read; China’s global reach: markets, multinationals, and globalization by a famous Chinese thinker, which gives clearest picture about what is going on inside China and current global affairs.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.