The global economic crisis has revealed the folly of large U.S. budget and trade deficits, as well as of the strong dollar that makes them possible. If it is serious about recovery, the United States must balance the budget, stimulate private saving, and embrace a declining dollar.
Comments
Another View of "War of Choice" in Iraq
It seems to be popular to condemn the "War of Choice" in Iraq without addressing the question of what could or would Saddam have done by 2009 if he had been left undisturbed. Well, of course, no one can say for certain what he would have done, but looking at what North Korea accomplished should be a consideration for what he could have done. Today, North Korea has two nuclear tests under its belt, and Saddam has none. Yet, he had smarter scientists, a better covert supply chain and more money than the North Koreans. Saddam could have two nuke tests under his belt as well. Am I arguing that every time the US is confronted with a "War of Choice" (e.g., Kosovo) that we should attack? No. The better choice is tough negotiations as the US/UK used with Khadafy to get Libya to renounce WMD in 2003. However, I would note that these tough negotiations were the direct result of Khadafy realizing that if it was 21 days to Baghdad, it might only be 5 days to the Shores of Tripoli (another positive result from that "War of Choice" in Iraq). In the 1930s, the West had "War of Choice" decisions in 1936 in the Re-militarization of the Rhineland, in 1938 during the Anschluss and 1939 during the takeover of Czechoslovakia. The question is never a simplistic "Do we go to war or not?". It is the tougher question of "If we don't go to war, then what happens?"