Prediction: Treasuries Will Lose Overseas

Foreign uptake of Treasuries will be choked off, by necessity. It won't be because they want to create havoc with the US, it will be because they will be forced to redirect their resources inward as their own economies collapse.

Prediction: Chinese Unrest

China will have its first large-scale rumbling of civil unrest as a consequence of collapsing export demand and thus employment. They'll manage to tamp it down (for the most part), this year. Don't take a bet on that holding together longer-term: they have a horrifying debt-financed overcapacity problem and there is no easy way for them to get out of it. The worst of it will be a year or two in the future.

"Largest Run on Currency in History"

More good news to ponder: HT naked capitalism.

Well, It's Been Too Long Since We Had a Meltdown

So why not get Europe in the act again.
It's only $24 trillion after all.

Anyone know a ditty with "insolvency" in the lyrics?

Russia in Bad Shape: China May be Worse

Great: more riots in China feared since more than 20 million out-of-work "migrant workers" continue to create social unrest. I can't think of a better word than "create", though it is hard to see that they are truly creating the mess that is China today.

Have I said it is going to get worse before it gets worse lately?

Thank G-d for, well, G-d.

More Good News Out of Russia: Default

It's amazing that a nation that held currency reserves of over half a trillion dollars just a few months ago could be on the verge of default to foreign creditors.

The Russian Association of Regional Banks has submitted a plan for rescheduling loans to the Russian government, the Nikkei newspaper said, citing an interview with Anatoly Aksakov, the head of the association. The group is already in talks with HSBC Holdings Plc and Deutsche Bank AG, the Nikkei reported.

That's $400 Billion in loans looking to be rescheduled. If this occurs, the credit markets will take another significant blow (as the currency markets have already).

"Lots of Boys and Lots of Guns"

Just watch the video. Trust me. You'll understand.
No foul language. No bad pictures.
Just a world you likely have not seen.

HT: Pop.

Mexico to Collapse?

An uncomfortable neighbor:
"there is a wave of barbarity that is heading toward the US."
So says the US Joint Forces Command.

Mumbai Bastards

"Bastards" pretty well sums it up: see this post.
Heart-wrenching.

Trapped, but Chanting "Lord, Have Mercy"

Note the difference in how the Christians responded to the aggressors.

Obama on Foreign Affairs/Policy

So, you thought you were turning over a whole new leaf for the country when you marked your ballot for the Dear Leader – didn't you? Well, think again. Not that you didn't already know that dear voter, right?

The Taliban-Republican Connection

Lest we forget:

Switching Sides

CIA Involvement in Tibet

Just what is our involvement? Are the "Free Tibet" folks dupes of the CIA?

On American Foreign Policy

Bill Moyers interviews Andrew j. Bacevich.
Two videos worth watching here.

Ron Paul Admits He Was Wrong About Iraq

Here.

Isolationism: Non-Interventionism

An isolationist -- if words have any meaning at all -- is someone who wants to isolate the country from interaction with the rest of the world. This isn't simply about disengagement from foreign conflicts but also drastically reducing our trade relations around the world -- and perhaps, initiating trade wars. So the real isolationist is someone who wants the military budget limited to what's required to defend the country, but who also wants national self-sufficiency and isn't interested in diplomatic engagement. Put this way, very few people would qualify as isolationists. Put this way, can you think of anybody who actually takes a totally isolationist view?

The Founders Were Not Isolationists

They were in favor of non-interventionism, which is a different thing.

Non-interventionism means that while one does want to isolate the country from foreign conflicts, one doesn't want to roll up into a ball and sit in the corner. Non-interventionists don't want to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries and don't want to get involved in wars that are none of our business. Non-interventionists want to define what is our business in a reasonable, non-insane kind of way. After all, not everything in the world is our business.

In other words, the non-interventionist wants to follow the advice of John Quincy Adams:

Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will [America’s] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

Beyond that, a non-interventionist supports international trade, cultural exchange, diplomatic contact, etc. A lot of the people who are smeared with the label 'isolationist,' actually hold this view. Non-interventionists say we do want to interact with the rest of the world, we just don't want to bomb them.

Learning to Love the French

It is perhaps inevitable that France and America should come into conflict: they are both arrogant nations: France because of her excellent and ancient culture and heritage from which she has fallen so far in the past century; and America because of her conviction that the God of the Calvinists in Whom she no longer believes has nevertheless blessed her above all other lands and set her “as a shining city upon the hill.” Two such colossal national egos, based upon such wildly differing premises, could hardly fail to come in conflict. To the average Frenchman, the United States are a band of uncultured striplings, whose sudden eruption upon the world scene, hamburgers, fries, and cokes in one hand, nukes in the other, determined to reduce the world to its own insufferable sterility. For the American, France is a nation of ungrateful whiners who not only have forgotten what was done for them in two world wars, they insist upon acting superior despite being political and military failures. Obviously, there is much truth in both views.

But it is a tad more complex than that . . . read the entire article here.

Iraq Foreign Policy Debate

"Resolved: America Should Immediately Withdraw
Her Armed Forces From Iraq."

In the affirmative: Justin Raimondo, Peter Brimelow, and the well-known leftist author Kirkpatrick Sale. In the negative: R. Cort Kirkwood, Srdja Trifkovic, and William Hawkins. This latter behaves rather poorly, but the debate's good-natured fun more than makes up for one person's poor manners.

Have a listen.