Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

I think I can solve part of #8 for you:

Stop the insane drive (in the US) to corn-based ethanol. Corn is a fundamental grain, both as a staple and as feed for cattle/pigs and the government subsidized welfare/ethanol drive is driving up the price of corn, which in turn makes food more expensive to produce. It also has the effect of limiting supply.

Regarding the comment on #8 above, an "easier" approach would likely be the reduction and eventual elimination of farming subsidies in the Core countries altogether. Sure, there will be adjustments in the commodities markets, and lots of farmers will lose their fields (because not growing the grain is often a lot more lucrative than growing and selling it), but it would be more fair to the poorer countries and will help bring some of those food prices down overall.

For #10: "Chavez," "nakedly aggressive," and "oil" all in the same sentence? Thanks for the image, buddy...not that there's anything wrong with that...

7. Less demographic demagoguery from nativist know-nothings.

This is definitely the one that bothers me the most. There is a great article in this month's Reason magazine where an economist points out that wage differentials across different countries are the only meaningful price differentials left in the global economy. He also notes that allowing more migrant labor is a huge win for both the migrants and a significant boost to the local macro-economy.

My guess for some kind of realistic progress on this issue will be to try to decouple the argument by isolating the problem of illegal immigration and also creating a guest worker program that does not grant migrants the same rights as locals.

This Reason article gives the example of Pakistani migrants in Kuwait being much better off because Kuwait does NOT let them in on Kuwait's extensive social welfare system. If they did, the Kuwaitis would quickly reduce the flow of Pakistanis to zero, and given this unequal system many are allowed to come to Kuwait and engage in economic activities that are not available in Pakistan,

re: farm subsidies. check out this blog by ag law profs from south/midwest--http://aglaw.blogspot.com/

doha mentioned by one candidate???

“7. Less demographic demagoguery from nativist know-nothings."

Tom, I'm going to attempt to explain to you what this so called "nativism" is all about. I had trouble understanding why you have so much trouble understanding the immigration issue. I thought it may have been your self-described “lateral” style of thinking, which may blind you to the fine details of globalization. I then thought it may have been out of political necessity, which is an attempt to show liberals that you’re “tolerant.” I think some of it’s due to your economic determinist worldview, but more than anything, I believe it to be a product of your upbringing. Like me, you grew up in an environment that looked a lot like 1950’s America. Contrary to conventional thought, growing up in a homogeneous environment tends to produce more “tolerant” people than the alternative.

As you might have noticed, the Southwest and Southeast United States is where the majority of the “nativism” is coming from. It’s not by chance that these regions happen to have the largest amount of “new immigrant” communities. The “natives” in these areas, have seen major changes in the last 20 years. Whether we like or not, the rate of crime has gone up in these areas. On top this, the need for social services have skyrocketed. The people are also seeing their streets, schools, and civic buildings being renamed to better suit the new immigrants. Cultural icons are being suppressed in the name of “tolerance” and gangs are popping in places that never had them before.

People are also seeing the new political implications. Many colleges in the SW have student groups and even professors that openly spew hatred towards “Anglo’s. There’s also a radical element that talks about annexing the SW and a group called “La Raza” (The Race), is pandered to by both political parties. While this is happening, black, Muslim, and other minority political organizations are forming alliances. The Muslim group CAIR openly supported the marches by Mexican immigrants last year. The group of people you call “nativists”, are only acting in the same tribal nature as they see every other group around them doing.

I could go on, but I know you have a “rule-set” on how long these posts can be. This is an issue that needs to be talked about properly without the name calling (Nativists). This is the beginning of something much bigger and if reasonable people don’t discuss it, then the more radical elements in this country will. I know I went long here, but I feel this conversation needs to be had. I have solutions, but first I’d like to get a dialog started so I know you’re open to discussion. Thank You.

Regarding 7, I'd like to know where I could go to read a balanced view. And thanks for the Reason article Mike. I'll read it.

A personal "Hi" to Tom from an old friend from Boscobel. I follow geopolitical developments more from a military/defense viewpoint. My opinion is that the U.S. is in mortal danger from China. Their obvious goals are to negate our space-based weapons systems, obtain an uninterruptible supply of oil while closing off our spigots, make U.S. projection of power via carrier/naval forces too expensive an option for challenging them, build an industrial/military complex using unfair trade practices which cause our capacity to wither on the vine; all of which is enabled by continuous and methodical plundering of any and all Intellectual Property. We need to secure "our" energy sources in the western hemisphere (Brazil, Venezuala, Canada). I can only pray that there is a long-term plan already developed and moving to counter the PRC's intentions in these areas. Ethanol won't cut it.
Regards,
Ron

Too bad the start of the new year does not coincide with the end of the current administration's policy making. We still have uneasy months to go. Can Condi Rice find another candidate for a suicide mission? Can we keep pretending that there is a central government in Iraq while our military makes separate, independent agreements with tribal leaders and militias? Will the American intelligence community have to throw itself under the bus again to save some country from "bomber Cheney"? Should be an interesting year. Hopefully, as the Brits like to say, "We will muddle through".

Ron, with regards to China, I think the question to ask is whether China, Iran, Russia, India or other countries are acting rationally. How would you expect the US to respond to a country that has the demostrated ability to project devestating military power anywhere in the world and has a budget that may equal that of all the rest combined? Fortunately, this power has not been abused (Bush admin decision on Iraq may be the exception ) and has provided the stability needed for globalization's advance. Still, the core function of the US military is to protect the nation from any threat. Why would we not think other countries would do the same?

A question for 2008:

Some say we are in mortal danger from China.

Others say that this is not true; that we are only in mortal danger from the Third World.

Should these dangers -- rather than being considered separate, distinct and exclusive -- actually be seen as one and the same (the potential of China in union with the Third World)?

What a great list! I completely agree with #4 and #5. How about promoting a new agenda for peace not war in 2008? Help us by suporting our "Disarmament and Globalisation" conference at SOAS on Monday 7th Jan. Read Freedland in the Guardian yesterday, on Gordon's role in 2008. www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2234009,00.html

and an Open Democracy article at:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/globalisation/disarmament_the_forgotten_issue