Has the US lost her way, and lost the Philippines?

Philippines as “Catholic China”. From “Yanko Tsvetkov’s Atlas of Prejudice”

By JoeAm

The United States was founded on the best principles from very bright minds who imagined a nation of citizens who could find personal enrichment and self-satisfaction by charting their own destiny. It worked fairly well for about 250 years, the energy of the nation’s young idealism fueling deep patriotic sacrifice and empowering a giant of productive energy, output, and enrichment.

This path was not easy. It was filled with wars and misadventures, political argument, social upheaval, and ever-changing national direction. Every election, four or eight years apart, brought new reactions, re-directions, and new policies.

Recently, political divisions have deepened. Politics has become a bitter arena, each side believing it represents the true America. Some of this was inspired by foreign agents. But much of it is simply blind, greedy ambition eroding the high-minded values of the founding fathers.

Furthermore, America’s enrichment has generated huge piles of wealth concentrated among a very few people and corporations who have no shyness about using that wealth to gain advantage for themselves, and to hell with the nation’s well-being. America’s failure to lead the world to safety from global warming is an example of the failures brought about by these two recent developments: (1)  intense political division, and (2) outright greed among the wealthiest Americans.

A strong, independent Philippines was a front-burner policy objective for the US from the early 1900’s through World War II, and during the communist threat that emerged from that war. But since then, the Philippines seems to have become lost as an American ’cause’ for democracy in Asia. The US was asked to leave its Philippine bases in 1991 and American policy has been pretty much “hands off” since then. Other than generous aid for disasters and self-interested support of the Philippine anti-terrorism effort, it is hard to discern that the US believes the Philippines is any way important to its national interests.

Oh, the US diplomats and admirals and even presidents talk about America’s “ironclad” commitment to Philippine defense expressed in the Mutual Defense Treaty. But the US Navy’s patrolling of the West Philippine and South China Seas is expressed as “freedom of navigation”, not defense of Philippine sovereignty. I don’t know what military defense is supposed to defend if it is not sovereignty. It is said that the US was a party to the loss of Scarborough Shoal to China during the Aquino years.

The US believes that unless guns are fired, there is no need for defense?

That is the beauty of the Chinese cabbage strategy. China pushes forward always one step short of shooting. The US is as inutile as a baby in the corner sucking a pacifier.

So it looks today that as of May 13, 2019, the Philippines will be gifted to China, lock, stock, and Senate. Imagine, both legislative bodies aligned with pro-China interests. Imagine Americans asked to leave Philippine bases once again, and China invited to set up bases, first in Palawan, then Subic, then Clark.

Oh, I argue now and then that the Philippines is responsible for Philippine interests. That’s true. But when did loss of the Philippines to dynastic thugs working with China NOT become an American interest?

It is the strangest sight to see this rumored imperialistic giant sitting on its military ass while losing a benchmark democracy in Asia to the communist imperialistic giant.

Sailing ships through international waters is a defense strategy? It’s like a basketball star thumping his chest whilst not being able to put the ball through the hoop.

  • As an American, I can’t comprehend the idea that Philippine independence and sovereignty is not in America’s best interest.
  • As a Philippine resident, I scratch my head as I enroll my son in Mandarin classes so that he can compete for a job in the Philippines.

Is America so screwed up domestically that she has lost her policy assertiveness, and lost sight of the point that defense is not something that is done only when guns are shooting?

Defending sovereignty is a full court, full time job.

Comments
88 Responses to “Has the US lost her way, and lost the Philippines?”
  1. karlgarcia says:

    https://amp.businessinsider.com/us-navy-tough-on-china-paramilitary-fishing-fleet-gray-zone-tactics-2019-4

    Maybe it is beyond assertion of Freedom of Navigation afterall, or not.

      • karlgarcia says:

        To quote Locsin.
        “in vagueness lies the best deterrence”

        • popoy says:

          “in vagueness lies the best deterrence”

          IN STRAIGHT THINKING, lies against groups or persons COULD be slander or libel. Millions OF LAWS had been enacted, amended, or repealed based on the TEN COMMANDMENTS alleged ( a lie? ) the mother of all laws? THOU SHALT NOT LIE.

          • popoy says:

            It is NOT common in the social dimension of education, health, culture, etc, but only in politics where you will likely find the FIs. Now try to guess what F and I means. F is the past tense of a verb which found common usage in the English speaking Free world.

          • karlgarcia says:

            Context.

            Lies- like here lies the body of name of departed.

        • Yes, but it seems to me nothing has been deterred.

      • popoy says:

        “Words, words, words.” Because of them words, many Filipino journalist had been murdered or killed more than in many civilized countries in the world.

      • popoy says:

        Aristotle’s words succinctly apply to USA: “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” that no one or few Presidents can revise. What is the modern word that fittingly describe all Americans who believe that no President ever can diminish the stature USA has attained in the world stage. These Americans will stay put in USA and not leave for Canada or elsewhere regardless of any presidency. What is that word, that escapes me now? It starts with s but can’t remember it.

  2. karlgarcia says:

    The military can not attack the Coast Guard.
    Remember what happened when our Navy harassed their Coast guard and fishing boats.

    Now the report said if escalation happens the greyzone stuff would be ignored ..
    The US Navy can attack Chinese Coast Guard if provoked

    • popoy says:

      It should be written now in the annals of AFP history that during the only real EDSA, a PN CNO became a bemedaled hero, who later became FOIC during the incumbency of a West Pointer called Tabako.

      • karlgarcia says:

        Jardiniano was during the time of Cory, followed by Cunanan, Dumancas, Marcelo, Santos.
        Who are you talkling about?
        My dad almost got the post but he had no command at sea, which is an unwritten(?) rule on berng FOIC.

  3. popoy says:

    can it be started here in TSoH such current events questions of the day like this one:

    Is rumor mongering a felony, a crime? Can a matrix which slander or libel particular groups or persons rumor mongering ? Should not the police or the NBI investigate allegations by particular accusers of people of planning to do criminal acts against government property or public servants. Should not government agencies be duty bound to go after public agencies or authorities who accuses without proof citizens of planning or plotting to commit crimes?

    https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2019/05/01/1914105/palace-totally-unnecessary-prove-oust-duterte-matrix

  4. popoy says:

    Should the Filipinos NOT be extremely happy permanently like the Bhutanese or the Nepalese because they can not be accused of ambitious hegemony or demagoguery in the global world of workers? In multi-racial cities, will it be so NICE to be an American, A Russian, or presently be a Chinese? Rule the world and be an unhappy or ugly or despised race?

  5. popoy says:

    another TSoH current event daily smart-alecky question:

    If a country CANNOT or SHOULD NOT go to war for CLAMS reasons; must it not be the same intellectual brilliance to CANNOT or SHOULD not for country to go to war for reasons of GARBAGE? SAD! (a favorite expression of POTUS.

  6. The US still appreciated its honor student in democracy (Germany) during Obama’s time.

    The US has been changing for quite a while.

  7. John Dyte says:

    Greetings Joe! Globalization and 911 has brought fear to U.S. shores creating a shallow depth of field among Americans still harboring that fear. To them everything outside the immediate focus point is all bokeh. Compound that in a leadership that thrives and promotes fear and memory goes back only as far as last week, never mind last century. Until that fear subsides to confidence, democracy will continue to lose ground. But on the other end, as history shows, the power that seeks to grow will inevitably open its inner sanctum to those it sought to control.

  8. Andres 2018 says:

    Within US, Trump and the Democrats could not even agree on the amount of the international aids that the US will provide. Is USAid for the good of America or for the good of other nations at America’s expense? Trump wants to cut the budget for it since America is getting nothing enough from it, while the other party advocates that America is getting advantages out of it as it could further American influence, good relation with that donee country or better trade relations. In connection with my previous comment in the previous post where i was ask of what USAids have done to the Philippines and i answered that it was to further US interest in the Philippines, it was that indeed. USAids as what the advocates of it have said is for the America to further its influence to other nations. Then why Trump wants to cut it low if its not doing enough for the US? I think it is not effective anymore, China is doing it more effectively the China way.

  9. Micha says:

    Has the US lost its way? Aye, aye sir, as the marines would have it said. Slowly but surely the empire is crumbling. Middle America is hallowing out while the pillage of the oligarchy goes unabated. Rome was sacked by barbaric Goths from within. America is being sacked by embedded plutocrats.

    The rise of China was enabled by the west. Or to be precise, was enabled by western corporations in search of cheap labor for maximizing their capital returns leaving communities and workers in the mainland destitute.

    All the ugly stuff we see today, from Duterte to Chinese incursions, from Gilets Jaunes to homelessness in America, from wars to environmental catastrophe – this is global capitalism going berserk and is coming home to roost.

    Yesterday, Random Guy Doe staged another coup in Venezuela with the full endorsement of neocon war freaks from Washington and its sycophants in the mainstream media. It failed. Which goes to prove that old rules for regime change don’t apply anymore even, perhaps, for a hostile criminal autocrat like Du30.

    If the US is losing its ideals envisioned by its founding fathers, the rest of humanity is also left un-moored.

    • In the 1990s, democracy winning after the Berlin Wall feel seemed like a dream come true.

      For me, neoliberalism originally appeared like a promise of progress after too much state – well I would not want shops to close a 6:30 p.m. anymore on weekdays in Germany like they used to before, but would I want a landscape littered with malls, with the consequence that most shop employees are temps (endos) like in Germany of the early 1930s (Like the nice guy hero of Hans Fallada’s 1932 novel “Little Man, What now?) – certainly NOT anymore..

      Would I want a purely commercialistic society that leads to people looking for a HOME that cold money does not give you – and makes them look for it in the wrong leaders?

      Back to the topic USA. I think Bush Sr. and Jr. both overreached in the Middle East. Empires sometimes do that and it either sets them back – or it can be their end. The biggest consolation we have is that even China will overreach at some point in time.

      Another mistake I think was to believe that by luring China into capitalism/consumerism, they would become exactly like the United States. Inability to get how other cultures work is a very American weakness. Underestimating enemies can be another.

    • karlgarcia says:

      The Americanization of China began in the 90s.

      https://www.gluckman.com/Americanization.html

  10. Very accurate observations. Yet one must not forget, that just like the Philippines, the U.S. was founded on a brutal land grab with the Natives Indians they encountered. Then using genocide, slavery and a host of other misdeeds, did they then take over and occupy the land.

    Fast forward from 1776 to 2019 and you see 243 years of recurring problems. Reminds me of the 300 years of Spanish rule followed by 60 years of American occupation that has resulted in what we today call the Philippines.

    It’s always important to know your history.

    • One major difference: the Philippines has remained majority NATIVE, unlike the US.

      Something like 85% native, 10% Chinese+mixed, 5% mixed+white more or less.

      China might change the equation – but the Philippines ALSO might influence it.

      The FILIPINA might be the secret weapon now, like against the Spanish friars before.

      Imagine if just one fourth of the Chinese population were half-Filipino, what then?

    • That tends to be the view of trolls who wish to paint the US experience as brutal and unfair, whereas the history we should know would say the lives of millions were enriched, the US became the most racially diverse and desirable place for immigrants to head, new social values of inclusion and fairness emerged, and a world global order was restored after World War II that had peace and civility as its ambition.

  11. “Sailing ships through international waters is a defense strategy? It’s like a basketball star thumping his chest whilst not being able to put the ball through the hoop.”

    Joe,

    Even Obama didn’t pivot in his famous Asian pivot. Trump could care less. Both men maybe exact opposites but both focused domestically.

    The closest analogy is MacArthur and Truman , the 38th parallel in the Korean peninsula.

    Kim (the granddad) asked Stalin and Mao’s blessings to cross it, he almost got the whole peninsula; but MacArthur did his Inchon landing, cutting N. Korea’s supplying lines; in a matter of weeks, the 38th parallel was enforced again.

    Truman wanted status quo,

    but MacArthur wasn’t having it, we have momentum so he raced to Pyongyang, that was easy he thought, let’s go all the way!!! to China!!! Truman was all like, whoaaaah, slow down, what’s our mission here, Doug?

    I’m gonna kick Chairman Mao’s butt !!! we’re going to China!

    Advance to Yalu River everyone! Mao’s like Hells no!!! Booooooooooooom, i’m sure somebody heard 3 horns blown thrice, but the Chinese suddenly showed in droves outnumbering Macarthur’s troops like 20 to 1, just like the White Walkers they just kept on coming.

    Truman finally stood up to old Doug, you’re fired come home! he got a ticker-tape parade, and got to do a speech in Congress.

    Americans settled back to the 38th parallel with tails tucked between their legs, but this time, they traced a new Truce line to fit the contour of the land, instead of just an arbitrary line on the ground.

    The irony is, with all that push south and then push up north, we all returned to the 38th parallel, adjusted to the contour of the land now. that’s the only difference.

    My point is re South China sea, it looks like the 38th parallel is now set, de facto. Shoulda, coulda, woulda, but it’s there, we can quibble on geographic contours, but the line’s drawn.

    You can do a Doug move, or accept the 38th parallel like Truman. No one’s gonna do another MacArthur (not anytime soon), so we’re stuck with the 38th parallel. To quote Jesus Christ,

    “It is finished!”. 😦

    • China is actually using an approach more similar to McArthur’s island-hopping against the Japanese in the Pacific – which ignored harder to get targets in favor of quick wins further forward – than the traditional land-based/line-based infantry approach.

      Securing allies, especially business allies, was something the USA also did well before invading the Philippines. The abaca trade was key, so key that an American warship was anchored in Legazpi City harbor way before Manila was under control -> to ensure supply.

      The USA this time could not go beyond the MDT and the Philippines could not offer more for fear of looking like a colony. So sneaking in instead of attacking worked for the Chinese.

      • Interesting. re island-hopping, you think there’s a Chinese equivalent(s) to this dude: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Hancock_Ellis#Undercover_mission_in_the_Central_Pacific

        “Ellis’ prophetic study of Japan and the Pacific established him at the forefront of naval theorists and strategists in the field of amphibious warfare, because he foresaw both the initial Japanese attack, and the subsequent island-hopping campaigns in the Central Pacific. He is still regarded as one of the Marine Corps’ primary theorists because his advocacy of amphibious operations provided the organization an enduring mission and structure as the need for what had been its primary role—security detachments aboard Navy ships and at naval bases—became less critical.”

    • Nice characterization. I can’t find anything to argue about. haha

  12. NHerrera says:

    Has the US lost her way, and lost the Philippines?

    WHY?

    I believe there are at least two elements.

    ON THE SIDE OF THE US: It is still the truism — that a country behaves very much to serve its interest. The country has over the years assessed, I believe quite accurately, that for some pittance, the Filipinos have been “bought” and stayed bought. Filipinos just love the US as evidenced by the Filipinos immigrating to the US, even the poor who sell their small piece of land, their carabaos to send a family member, a nurse, to the US.

    ON THE SIDE OF THE PH: The Filipinos as have been repeatedly observed here have the character that synergistically act to reinforce the treatment they may get from the US, who after all do not have unlimited resources, and have to allocate resources to other countries to further their interests. Better more resource to go to Vietnam than the Philippines.

    My comments in the two paragraphs above are by no means exhaustive. More illustrative. And I may add … until Duterte came along. But even then survey upon surveys shows the preference for US rather than China.

    • edgar lores says:

      *****
      The US is losing its way — democratically and geopolitically. And perhaps militarily.

      China is finding its way — economically and geopolitically. And perhaps militarily.

      The Philippines is just lost. In all ways.
      *****

    • Your comments make good sense. Trust is a two-way street and neither the US nor Philippines seem interested in building it.

  13. madlanglupa says:

    This is somewhat out of topic, but does this kinda reminds you of those outbursts of “freedom and democracy” from anti-communist organizations?

    • Funny when local media are so tabloidian and absent the kind of investigative work like that done by the ‘foreign-funded’ media, that they would whine about foreign funding of the investigative press. Meanwhile great gobs of foreign funds flow to politicians. Perhaps citizens would be better served if they focused on ethics rather than foreign funding that actually generates real information. Or pointed out how bankrupt media help the citizens. Yes, it is whacky, for sure.

    • WLC says:

      I miss Tony Nieva’s NPC during the dying days of Marcos dictatorship. These are bunch of pathetic “journalists”.

  14. Micha says:

    To find its way back, America needs to reform capitalism.

    Reform capitalism or face revolution, billionaires are told at Milken Conference

    If the barricades have not been erected in the streets, they were told several times over, they could soon be unless there is reform of the American economic system.

    “It’s not whether we should be capitalist or socialist. It’s how do we make sure that capitalism is working the way it has in the past,” said Alan Schwartz, a managing partner at global investment firm Guggenheim Partners.

      • karlgarcia says:

        I will not copy paste the graphs, just the text.

        ——
        There has been little or no real income growth for most people for decades. As shown in the chart below on the left, prime-age workers in the bottom 60% have had no real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) income growth since 1980. That was at a time when incomes for the top 10% have doubled and those of the top 1% have tripled.i As shown in the chart to the right, the percentage of children who grow up to earn more than their parents has fallen from 90% in 1970 to 50% today. That’s for the population as a whole. For most of those in the lower 60%, the prospects are worse.

        As shown below, the income gap is about as high as ever and the wealth gap is the highest since the late 1930s. Today, the wealth of the top 1% of the population is more than that of the bottom 90% of the population combined, which is the same sort of wealth gap that existed during the 1935-40 period (a period that brought in an era of great internal and external conflicts for most countries). Those in the top 40% now have on average more than 10 times as much wealth as those in the bottom 60%.iv That is up from six times in 1980.

        The following charts show real income growth by quintiles for the overall population since 1970. Ask yourself which one you’re in. That probably has given you your perspective. My objective is to show you the broader perspective.

        Real Mean Household Income by Quintile (2017 USD)

        Most people in the bottom 60% are poor. For example, only about a third of the bottom 60% save any of their income in cash or financial assets. According to a recent Federal Reserve study, 40% of all Americans would struggle to raise $400 in the event of an emergency.viii

        And they are increasingly getting stuck being poor. The following chart shows the odds of someone in the bottom quintile moving up to the middle quintile or higher in a 10-year period. Those odds declined from about 23% in 1990 to only 14% as of 2011.

        While most Americans think of the US as being a country of great economic mobility and opportunity, its economic mobility rate is now one of the worst in the developed world. As shown below, in the US people whose fathers were in the bottom income quartile have a 40% chance of staying in that quartile and only about an 8% chance of making it to the top quartile, which is half of the average probability of moving up and one of the worst probabilities of the countries analyzed. In a country of equal opportunity, that would not exist.

        Est Percentage of People Born to Bottom-Quartile Fathers In Top vs Bottom Quartiles

        One’s income growth results from one’s productivity growth, which results from one’s personal development. So let’s look at how we are developing people. Let’s start with children.

        To me, the most intolerable situation is how our system fails to take good care of so many of our children. As I will show, a large number of them are poor, malnourished (physically and mentally), and poorly educated. More specifically:

        The childhood poverty rate in the US is now 17.5% and has not meaningfully improved for decades.xi In the US in 2017, around 17% of children lived in food-insecure homes where at least one family member was unable to acquire adequate food due to insufficient money or other resources.xii Unicef reports that the US is worse than average in the percent of children living in a food-insecure household (with the US faring worse than Poland, Greece, and Chile).xiii
        The domino effects of these conditions are costly. Low incomes, poorly funded schools, and weak family support for children lead to poor academic achievement, which leads to low productivity and low incomes of people who become economic burdens on the society.

        Though there are bright spots in the American education system such as our few great universities, the US population as a whole scores very poorly relative to the rest of the developed world in standardized tests for a given education level. More specifically:

        Looking at the most respected (PISA) test scores, the US is currently around the bottom 15th percentile of the developed world. As shown below, the US scores lower than virtually all developed countries other than Italy and Greece. That stands in the way of many people having adequate living standards and of US competitiveness.
        2015 PISA Scores Across Countries

        Differences in these scores are tied to poverty levels—i.e., high-poverty schools (measured by the share of students eligible for free/reduced-price lunch) have PISA test scores around 25% lower than schools with the lowest levels of poverty.

        US PISA Test Scores by % of Students Eligible for Free/Reduced-Price Lunch

        Among developed (i.e., OECD) countries, the US has the third-worst difference in shortages of teaching staff between advantaged and disadvantaged schools.
        Teaching Staff Shortages at Advantaged vs Disadvantaged Schools (Based on Indexed Surveys)

        The stats that show that the US does a poor job of tending to the needs of its poor students relative to how most other countries do it are never-ending. Here are a few more:

        The proportion of disadvantaged students who have at least a year of pre-primary education is lower in the US compared to the average OECD country.xvii
        Among OECD countries, the US has the second-worst child poverty rate as of 2008 among single-parent households who aren’t working—a failure of the social safety net.xviii
        These poor educational results lead to a high percentage of students being inadequately prepared for work and having emotional problems that become manifest in damaging behaviors. Disadvantaged students in the US are far more likely to report social and/or emotional issues than in most other developed countries, including not being socially integrated at school, severe test anxiety, and low satisfaction with life.

        Share of Disadvantaged Students Who Report Significant Social/Emotional Problems

        34% of high-poverty schools experienced high levels of chronic student absence, versus only 10% of high-income schools.xx Even in Connecticut, one of the wealthiest states by per capita income, 22% of youth are disengaged (i.e., either missing more than 25 days of school a year, failing two or more courses, or being suspended multiple times) or disconnected (young people not enrolled in school and without a high school degree).xxi Disconnected youth in Connecticut are five times more likely to end up incarcerated and 33% more likely to be struggling with substance abuse (full report linked here).

        Comparing the high school graduation rates of Connecticut school districts to child poverty rates shows a tight relationship across the state: a 1% higher child poverty rate equates to about 1% lower graduation rates.

        High School Graduation Rates vs Childhood Poverty Rates for Connecticut School Districts

        Across states, there is a strong relationship between spending per student and educational outcomes.
        Scatters of Educational Spending and Outcomes for US States
        Spending per Pupil vs. grade 12 Test Scores

        Recent research for the US suggests that children under age 5 who were granted access to food stamps experienced better health and education outcomes—an estimated 18% increase in high school graduation rates—which led them to be much less likely to rely on other welfare programs later in life.xxiv

        Students who come from poor families and try to go to college are less well prepared. For example, those who come from families earning less than $20,000 score on average 260 points (out of 1600) worse on the SAT than students from families earning $200,000+ do, and the gap is increasing.xxv The gap in test scores between children at the top and bottom of the income distribution is estimated to be 75% higher today than it was in the early 1940s, according to a 2011 study.xxvi

        Yet children living in poorer neighborhoods on average receive about $1,000 less state and local funding per student than those in the more prosperous neighborhoods.xxvii This is despite the fact that the federal government (according to its Title I funding formula) assumes it costs a district 40% more per year to educate lower-income students to the same standard as typical students.xxviii As a result, schools in low-income areas are typically severely underfunded. On average, in public schools 94% of teachers have to pay for supplies with their own money—often including basic cleaning supplies—and it is worse in the poorest public schools.xxix

        A related problem is that many teachers who have to deal with these stressful conditions are underpaid and under-respected. When I was growing up, doctors, lawyers, and teachers were the most respected professions. Now, teachers make only 68% of what other university graduates make, which is significantly less than they make in other OECD developed countries.xxx Even looking at weekly earnings to adjust for the length of the school year and controlling for other things that impact pay (like age and years of experience), teachers earned 19% less than comparable workers in 2017, versus only 2% less in 1994. Even worse, they don’t get the respect that they deserve.xxxi

        The income/education/wealth/opportunity gap reinforces the income/education/wealth/opportunity gap:
        Richer communities tend to have public schools that are far better funded than poorer communities, which reinforces the income/wealth/opportunity gap. One of the main reasons for this funding gap is that the Constitution made education a state issue, and most states made local schools primarily locally funded so that rich towns have well-funded public schools and poor towns have poorly funded public schools. More specifically, around 45% of school funding comes from local governments, primarily through property taxes, while only around 8% comes from the federal government, and the rest is from state governments.xxxii Thus, there can be enormous variations in the wealth/income of individual communities. Also, the top 40% of income earners spend almost five times as much on their children’s education as the bottom 60% of income earners do, while those in the top 20% spend about six times as much as those in the bottom 20% do.xxxiii

        Underfunded public schools are suffering in quality. For instance, PISA data shows that students at US schools with significant teaching staff shortages score 10.5% worse on testing than students at schools with no teacher shortages. Similarly, a shortage of lab equipment is associated with a 16.7% drop in student scores, and shortages of library materials are associated with a 15.1% drop in student scores.xxxiv

        By comparison, private schools on average both spend considerably more on students and produce better outcomes. Private schools in the US spend about 70% more per student than public schools do, with the median private school spending about $23,000 per student in 2016, compared to about $14,000 for the average public school.xxxv This higher spending translates to higher test scores: in the last round of PISA testing, US private school students scored on average 4.3% higher than public school students across math, reading, and science exams. Over the three PISA surveys since 2009, private school students have scored on average 6.9% higher.xxxvi

        Not surprisingly, Americans have much less confidence in public schools today than they have had at any point over the last five decades. Today, only 29% of Americans have a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of trust in the public education system. In 1975, 62% of Americans trusted public schools.xxxvii

        To me, leaving so many children in poverty and not educating them well is the equivalent of child abuse, and it is economically stupid.

        The weakening of the family and good parental guidance has also been an important adverse influence:

        Here are a few stats that convey how the family unit has changed over the years:

        In 1960, 73% of children lived with two married parents who had never been divorced, and 13% lived in a household without two married parents.2 In 2014, the share of children living in a household without two married parents was 38% (and now less than half live in households with two parents in a first marriage). Those stats are for the average of all households in the US. The family support for those in low-education, low-income households is much less. Around 60% of children of parents with less than high school education don’t live in households with two married parents, while only 14% of children of parents who graduated college are in such households.xxxviii
        2The remaining 14% lived with two parents in remarriages.
        The probability of being incarcerated is closely related to education levels: among Americans aged 28-33, 35% of male high school dropouts have been incarcerated versus around 10% of male high school graduates and only 2% of male college graduates.xxxix

        Between 1991 and 2007, the number of children with a parent in state or federal prison grew 80%.xl Today, an estimated 2.7 million children in the US have a parent in prison or jail—that is 1 in every 28 children (3.6% of all children).xli

        Bad childcare and bad education lead to badly behaved adults hence higher crime rates that inflict terrible costs on the society:
        The United States’ incarceration rate is nearly five times the average of other developed countries and three times that of emerging countries.xlii The direct cost of keeping people incarcerated is staggering and has grown rapidly: state correctional costs quadrupled over the past two decades and now top $50 billion a year, consuming 1 in every 15 general fund dollars. xliii

        This bad cycle perpetuates itself as criminal/arrest records make it much more difficult to find a job, which depresses earnings. Serving time, even relatively brief periods, reduces hourly wages for men by approximately 11%, the time employed by 9 weeks per year, and annual earnings by 40%. xliv

        The health consequences and economic costs of low education and poverty are terrible:

        For example, for those in the bottom 60% premature deaths are up by about 20% since 2000.xlv Men from the lowest 20% of the income distribution can expect to live about 10 fewer years than men from the top 20%.xlvi

        The US is just about the only major industrialized country with flat/slightly rising premature death rates. The biggest contributors to that change are an increase in deaths by drugs/poisoning (having more than doubled since 2000) and an increase in suicides (up over 50% since 2000).xlvii

        Since 1990, the share of Americans who say that in the last year they put off medical treatment for a serious condition because of cost has roughly doubled, from 11% in 1991 to 19% today.xlviii

        Those who are unemployed or those making less than $35,000 per year have worse health, with 20% of each group reporting poor health, about three times the rate for the rest of the population.xlix

        The impacts of childhood poverty alone in the US are estimated to increase health expenditures by 1.2% of GDP.l

        These conditions pose an existential risk for the US.

        The previously described income/wealth/opportunity gap and its manifestations pose existential threats to the US because these conditions weaken the US economically, threaten to bring about painful and counterproductive domestic conflict, and undermine the United States’ strength relative to that of its global competitors.

        These gaps weaken us economically because:

        They slow our economic growth because the marginal propensity to spend of wealthy people is much less than the marginal propensity to spend of people who are short of money.
        They result in suboptimal talent development and lead to a large percentage of the population undertaking damaging activities rather than contributing activities.
        In addition to social and economic bad consequences, the income/wealth/opportunity gap is leading to dangerous social and political divisions that threaten our cohesive fabric and capitalism itself.

        I believe that, as a principle, if there is a very big gap in the economic conditions of people who share a budget and there is an economic downturn, there is a high risk of bad conflict. Disparity in wealth, especially when accompanied by disparity in values, leads to increasing conflict and, in the government, that manifests itself in the form of populism of the left and populism of the right and often in revolutions of one sort or another. For that reason, I am worried what the next economic downturn will be like, especially as central banks have limited ability to reverse it and we have so much political polarity and populism.

        The problem is that capitalists typically don’t know how to divide the pie well and socialists typically don’t know how to grow it well. While one might hope that when such economic polarity and poor conditions exist, leaders would pull together to reform the system to both divide the economic pie and make it grow better (which is certainly doable and the best path), they typically become progressively more extreme and fight more than cooperate.

        In order to understand the phenomenon of populism, two years ago I did a study of it in which I looked at 14 iconic cases and observed the patterns and the forces behind them. If you are interested in it, you can read it here at http://www.economicprinciples.org. In brief, I learned that populism arises when strong fighters/leaders of the right or of the left who are looking to fight and defeat the opposition come to power and escalate their conflict with the opposition, which typically galvanizes around comparably strong/fighting leaders. The most important thing to watch as populism develops is how conflict is handled—whether the opposing forces can coexist to make progress or whether they increasingly “go to war” to block and hurt each other and cause gridlock. In the worst cases, this conflict causes economic problems (e.g., via paralyzing strikes and demonstrations) and can even lead to moves from democratic leadership to autocratic leadership as happened in a number of countries in the 1930s.

        We are now seeing conflicts between populists of the left and populists of the right increasing around the world in much the same way as the same way as they did in the 1930s when the income and wealth gaps were comparably large. In the US, the ideological polarity is greater than it has ever been and the willingness to compromise is less than it’s ever been. The chart on the left shows how conservative Republican senators and representatives have been and how liberal Democratic senators and representatives have been going back to 1900. As you can see, they are each more extreme and they are more divided than ever before. The chart on the right shows what percentage of them have voted along party lines going back to 1790, which is now the greatest ever. In other words, they have more polar extreme positions and they are more solidified in those positions than ever. And we are coming into a presidential election year. We can expect a hell of a battle.

        It doesn’t take a genius to know that when a system is producing outcomes that are so inconsistent with its goals, it needs to be reformed. In the next part, I will explore why it is producing these substandard outcomes and what I think should be done to reform it.

        Part 2
        My Diagnosis of Why Capitalism Is Now Not Working Well for the Majority of People
        I believe that reality works like a machine with cause/effect relationships that produce outcomes, and that when the outcomes fall short of the goals one needs to diagnose why the machine is working inadequately and then reform it. I also believe that most everything happens over and over again through history, and by observing and thinking through these patterns one can better understand how reality works and acquire timeless and universal principles for dealing with it better. I believe that the previously shown outcomes are unacceptable, so that we first need to look at how the economic machine is producing these outcomes and then think about how to reform it.

        Contrary to what populists of the left and populists of the right are saying, these unacceptable outcomes aren’t due to either a) evil rich people doing bad things to poor people or b) lazy poor people and bureaucratic inefficiencies, as much as they are due to how the capitalist system is now working.

        I believe that all good things taken to an extreme become self-destructive and everything must evolve or die, and that these principles now apply to capitalism. While the pursuit of profit is usually an effective motivator and resource allocator for creating productivity and for providing those who are productive with buying power, it is now producing a self-reinforcing feedback loop that widens the income/wealth/opportunity gap to the point that capitalism and the American Dream are in jeopardy. That is because capitalism is now working in a way in which people and companies find it profitable to have policies and make technologies that lessen their people costs, which lessens a large percentage of the population’s share of society’s resources. Those companies and people who are richer have greater buying power, which motivates those who seek profit to shift their resources to produce what the haves want relative to what the have-nots want, which includes fundamentally required things like good care and education for the have-not children. We just saw this exemplified in the college admissions cheating scandal.

        As a result of this dynamic, the system is producing self-reinforcing spirals up for the haves and down for the have-nots, which are leading to harmful excesses at the top and harmful deprivations at the bottom. More specifically, I believe that:

        The pursuit of profit and greater efficiencies has led to the invention of new technologies that replace people, which has made companies run more efficiently, rewarded those who invented these technologies, and hurt those who were replaced by them. This force will accelerate over the next several years, and there is no plan to deal with it well.

        The pursuit of greater profits and greater company efficiencies has also led companies to produce in other countries and to replace American workers with cost-effective foreign workers, which was good for these companies’ profits and efficiencies but bad for the American workers’ incomes. Of course, this globalization also allowed less expensive and perhaps better quality foreign goods to come into the US, which has been good for both the foreign sellers and the American buyers of them and bad for the American companies and workers who compete with them.

        Because of these two forces, the share of revenue that has gone to profits has increased relative to the share that has gone to the worker. The charts below show the percentage of corporate revenue that has gone to profits and the percentage that has gone to employee compensation since 1929.

        Central banks’ printing of money and buying of financial assets (which were necessary to deal with the 2008 debt crisis and to stimulate economic growth) drove up the prices of financial assets, which helped make people who own financial assets richer relative to those who don’t own them. When the Federal Reserve (and most other central banks) buys financial assets to put money in the economy in order to stimulate the economy, the sellers of those financial assets (who are rich enough to have financial assets) a) get richer because the financial asset prices rise and b) are more likely to buy financial assets than to buy goods and services, which makes the rich richer and flush with money and credit while the majority of people who are poor don’t get money and credit because they are less creditworthy. From being in the investment business, I see that there is a glut of investment money chasing investments at the same time as there is an extreme shortage of money among most people. In other words, money is clogged at the top because if you’re one of those who has money or good ideas of how to make money you can have more money than you need because lenders will freely lend it to you and investors will compete to give it to you. On the other hand, if you’re not in financially good shape nobody will lend to you or invest in you and the government doesn’t help materially because the government doesn’t do that.

        Policy makers pay too much attention to budgets relative to returns on investments. For example, not spending money on educating our children well might be good from a budget perspective, but it’s really stupid from an investment perspective. Looking at the funding through a budget lens doesn’t lead one to take into consideration the all-in economic picture—e.g., it doesn’t take into consideration the all-in costs to the society of having poorly educated people. While focusing on the budget is what fiscal conservatives typically do, fiscal liberals have typically shown themselves to borrow too much money and fail to spend it wisely to produce the economic returns that are required to service the debts they have taken on, so they often end up with debt crises. The budget hawk conservatives and the pro-spending/borrowing liberals have trouble focusing on, working together for, and achieving good “double bottom line” return on investments (i.e., investments that produce both good social returns and good economic returns).

        What I Think Should Be Done
        For the previously explained reasons, I believe that capitalism is a fundamentally sound system that is now not working well for the majority of people, so it must be reformed to provide many more equal opportunities and to be more productive. To make the changes, I believe something like the following is needed.

        Leadership from the top. I have a principle that you will not effect change unless you affect the people who have their hands on the levers of power so that they move them to change things the way you want them to change. So there need to be powerful forces from the top of the country that proclaim the income/wealth/opportunity gap to be a national emergency and take on the responsibility for reengineering the system so that it works better.

        Bipartisan and skilled shapers of policy working together to redesign the system so it works better. I believe that we will do this in a bipartisan and skilled way or we will hurt each other. So I believe the leadership should create a bipartisan commission to bring together skilled people from different communities to come up with a plan to reengineer the system to simultaneously divide and increase the economic pie better. That plan will show how to raise money and spend/invest it well to produce good double bottom line returns.

        Clear metrics that can be used to judge success and hold the people in charge accountable for achieving it. In running the things I run, I like to have clear metrics that show how those who are responsible for things are doing and have rewards and punishments that are based on how these metrics change. Having these would produce the accountability and feedback loop that are required to achieve success. To the extent possible, I’d bring that sort of accountability down to the individual level to encourage an accountability culture in which individuals are aware of whether they are net contributors or net detractors to the society, and the individuals and the society make attempts to make them net contributors.

        • karlgarcia says:

          Kindly comment on printing money drove up prices.

          • Micha says:

            Dalio was referring to the purchase of the Fed of corporate bonds and securities increasing the value of those financial assets.

            Bernanke’s money printing (QE) bailed out Wall Street corporations and criminal bankers but left ordinary Americans to hang.

  15. Joe The Kano says:

    So what, specifically, would you have the US do?
    Intervene in Philippine domestic affairs while the usual suspects shriek about imperialism?
    Engage China miltarily over disputed islands and territory when it is not bound by the Mutual Defense Treaty to do so, and the Philippines has not asked it to do so, and the current administration has proved totally unreliable as an ally?
    At some point, the Philippines is going to be hopelessly stuck in the mess it is making, and the US won’t be to blame. It’s high time everyone grew out of that debilitating colonial mentality.

    • karlgarcia says:

      https://www.britannica.com/place/South-China-Sea

      South China Sea, Chinese Nan Hai, arm of the western Pacific Ocean that borders the Southeast Asian mainland. It is bounded on the northeast by the Taiwan Strait (by which it is connected to the East China Sea); on the east by Taiwan and the Philippines; on the southeast and south by Borneo, the southern limit of the Gulf of Thailand, and the east coast of the Malay Peninsula; and on the west and north by the Asian mainland. The South China Sea and the East China Sea together form the China Sea. The southern boundary of the South China Sea is a rise in the seabed between Sumatra and Borneo, and the northern boundary stretches from the northernmost point of Taiwan to the coast of Fujian province, China, in the Taiwan Strait. It embraces an area of about 1,423,000 square miles (3,685,000 square km), with a mean depth of 3,976 feet (1,212 metres).

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_China_Sea

      The South China Sea is a marginal sea that is part of the Pacific Ocean, encompassing an area from the Karimata and Malacca Straits to the Strait of Taiwan of around 3,500,000 square kilometres (1,400,000 sq mi).

      • karlgarcia says:

        https://www.rappler.com/nation/58048-edca-hearing-congress

        Ambassador Hubbard’s letter

        Bello asked the panel for “specific comments during the negotiations… that say the US will consider an armed attack on the Kalayaan Island Groupo as an attack that the US must respond to because it is in the MDT.”

        Panel member Ambassador Eduardo Malaya pulled out a 1999 letter of former US Ambassador Thomas Hubbard to then Foreign Affairs Secretary Domingo Siazon.

        Hubbard’s letter to Siazon cited a statement issued by then US Defense Secretary William Cohen that addressed whatever vagueness the MDT has.

        “Last August, in response to questions issued during his visit to the Philippines, US Defense Secretary William Cohen stated that US considers the South China Sea to be part of the Pacific Area,” Hubbard’s letter reads.

        Hubbard’s letter sought to correct a newspaper story quoting then US Pacific Command Dennis Blair that the West Philippines Sea is not covered under the MDT.

        “I’m concerned that US policy has been seriously misconstrued… As you can see the body of the article does not support the headline US offers no security blanket,” Hubbard wrote.

        • karlgarcia says:

          That is why Lorenzana, Roque and others are disengenious for asking for the review of the MDT, as if there were no EDCA hearings at all, it never happened and there are no transcripts!

    • Good questions. Be louder, lean on Lorenzana, have ships in the area of Scarborough when Philippine AFP remove Chinese boats from the area. Be clearer that the US is prepared to fight if Philippine ships are attacked. Sail out to investigate the swarm of boats threatening Pagasa. Confirm the boats are fishing and are allowing Philippine ships free sailing to repair the facilities on Pagasa. Be more visibly and proactively engaged.

      Or, simply let China have the Philippines.

      • Joe The Kano says:

        At some point, the Philippines must grow up and take responsibility for its affairs as a nation, including its defense.
        Always playing the victim and trying to have everything both ways doesn’t work. Blaming the US for everything is just a tedious colonial mentality that useless politicians hide behind.
        “Yankee go home!”
        “Yankee save us!”
        The Philippines is not the US’s to “lose.” Not since 1946. It’s not for the US to “let” China have the Philippines.
        The Philippines elected Duterte, and apparently remains satisfied despite his immediate capitulation to China.
        If the Philippines wants to become China’s abused lapdog, the Philippines will have to live with that tragic decision.

        • Agree on the Philippines. Don’t agree on the US taking a passive stance while China is aggressive. Strategically, the Philippines is a huge interest. Bigger than, say, Venezuela.

          • Joe The Kano says:

            A huge interest and a huge liability, as history has shown, and especially now with such unstable, unprincipled, and unreliable leadership. To the extent the US stance is passive—and it’s quite a stretch to make that claim—that’s quite rational behavior in light of the Philippines’ petulant attitude toward its most important treaty ally and its shameless ongoing sellout to China despite the enormous and increasing threat.

  16. karlgarcia says:

    Joe has time and again opined that we can have a military industrial complex if we want to.

    I reiterate my earlier comments that if we cannot manufacture because of intellectual property rights then we do licensed production.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensed_production

    Industrial products which have been built under license include:

    The Belgian FN FAL battle rifle by FN Herstal, produced under license in fifteen countries.[11]
    The German G3 battle rifle by Heckler & Koch, produced under license in eighteen countries.[11]
    The Italian Aermacchi MB-326 trainer aircraft, produced under license in Brazil and South Africa.[12]
    The British Folland Gnat trainer aircraft, produced under license in India.[14]
    The American Northrop F-5 light fighter aircraft, produced under license in Taiwan.[12]
    The Soviet Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 multirole fighter aircraft, produced under license in India.[14]
    The American General Dynamics F-16 multirole fighter aircraft, produced under license in South Korea.[12]
    The British Canberra bomber aircraft, produced under license in the United States as the Martin B-57 Canberra.[15]
    The French Aérospatiale Alouette III helicopter, produced under license in Romania, Switzerland, and India.[16]
    The American Bell UH-1 Iroquois helicopter, produced under license in Germany, Japan, and Italy.[17]
    The French Panhard AML armored car, produced under license in South Africa as the Eland Mk7.[8]
    The French CM60A1 mortar, produced under license in South Africa.[18]
    The Italian Fiat 125 passenger car, produced under license in Poland as the Polski Fiat 125p.[19]
    The Soviet GAZ-M20 Pobeda sedan, produced under license in Poland as the FSO Warszawa.[19]

    And we are already doing so.

    http://adroth.ph/licensed-manufacture-the-key-to-survival-for-srdp-companies/

    • The failure of the Philippines to fend for herself whilst building a robust economy is mind boggling.

      • karlgarcia says:

        It is indeed.

      • sonny says:

        Joe, sorry to be a broken record. Sometime back I asserted:

        “The Filipino people and society was left with nothing but literally only the shirts on their backs. True, the islands were gifted with rich natural resources at the end of WWII. The key elements of sustenance, organization, infrastructure, a bare essential sense of national unity were forcibly removed just by being a theater of conflict. I suggest even at this time of historical attenuation, that we did not recover from that extreme privation.”

        This was the fork in the road where the Filipino nation took a wrong turn in favor of neglect and instead ended up in a sisyphean paradigm of repeated beginnings. I wish to heaven I had the smarts of a chempo to trace and address this pathology.

        https://joeam.com/2019/04/08/why-filipinos-fight-filipinos-instead-of-building-a-great-nation/#comment-276691

        • karlgarcia says:

          Joe has offered the solution for the Sisyphus’ Lament.

          “There is only one solution to this.

          Man up.

          Do the job and accept the results. Own them.

          What, you can’t do that?”

          It seems that we can not.

        • Yes, thanks, sonny. The reasons are legitimate, the path to correction is clear, the leaders are lost.

      • No. I think reasons are quite simple. Most elites think hand to mouth. They want to make a fast buck. Some are mere rent-seekers who seek to minimize whatever investment.

        – corrupt officials selling entire mountains to let the Chinese mine them (Zambales)

        – the Villars and others loving the high rents Chinese gambling outfits pay to them

        – malls and utilities with their captive consumers milking the money of OFWs and others

        – contracts awarded to foreign companies instead of local companies to build a local base (three L/MRT lines and modernizing PNR lines would have been enough to seed local train wagon builders, for example, to have someone to maintain them and supply them FAST)

        – the extreme is letting foreign contractors (Chinese) get away with completely foreign crews. LRT 1 (I know an engineer from Mapua who worked on that) may have had some Italian and Belgian engineers for different phases, but FILIPINO crews for most work.

        The two latter phenomena point to a fast buck being made somewhere, by some people.

        What the Chinese are doing today is remiscent of what American swindler Harry Stonehill did in the 1960s under Macapagal. The reason: the rich do not want to delay gratification.

        • Fascinating this near-term thinking. The Philippines is the land of Eckhart Tolle, so focused on the now that the future will take care of itself to the disadvantage of their kids’ now. I think there is an equity (capital) to nationhood that protects the collective, but the Philippines is bankrupt.

  17. karlgarcia says:

    I refuse to believe that we are lost.

    For the job creation and military needs, we don’t need things to be complex.

    https://joeam.com/2018/07/04/here-is-an-idea-build-a-philippine-military-industrial-simplex/

    A reader Jetty went lecturing and said that incompetence is not the norm and it is lack of love for country that makes us……..incompetent.

    https://joeam.com/2019/04/13/why-incompetence-is-the-norm-in-the-philippines/#comment-280106

    Viral posts about our not loving our country abound. They say that South Koreans love their country, etc (Is that the reason why former presidents and CEOS get executed because of plunder?)
    Maybe if we love our country, we would adjust our goalposts, I mean standards to the highest .

    • karlgarcia says:

      Ray Dalio is Micha in disguise, same views on Capitalism’s need of reforms and MMT. Micha is a billionaire.

  18. karlgarcia says:

    We must first remove our incompetence in our leaders and those being led.
    We must genuinely love our country by doing only what is in her interests.
    We must have genuine friendship with other nations.
    We must have a self reliant defense posture.
    We must not stop improving.
    We must not run out of ideas.

  19. karlgarcia says:

    Let us see next month if there is something to expect.

    https://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/us-to-unveil-new-indo-pacific-strategy-this-month-in-singapore-report-says-1.579171

    US to unveil new Indo-Pacific strategy this month in Singapore, report says

    The Department of Defense will reveal a new Indo-Pacific strategy at an international conference on defense in Singapore this month, according to a Tuesday report by U.S. Naval Institute News.

    Acting Secretary of Defense Pat Shanahan will discuss details of the new Indo-Pacific strategy at the upcoming Shangri-La Dialogue from May 31 through June 2, the report said.

    “Our National Defense Strategy and National Security Strategy identify the Indo-Pacific as the priority theater, and I think Secretary Shanahan will talk about that at Shangri-La and what it means to be a priority theater,” Assistant Secretary of Defense for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs Randall Schriver said at a media roundtable last week in Malaysia, according to USNI News.

    The Shangri-La Dialogue is a summit on defense in Asia where defense leaders “debate the region’s most pressing security challenges, engage in important bilateral talks and come up with fresh solutions together,” according to the summit’s website.

    The U.S. focus on the Indo-Pacific has grown over the past decade. In March, Shanahan testified before Congress that the 2020 DOD budget proposal was shaped by national security threats from China.

    article continues below

    related articles

    Of the four states listed as threats in the 2018 National Defense Strategy, half are in the Indo-Pacific region — China, for its expanding influence in the Pacific and militarization of islands and reefs in the South China Sea, and North Korea for its nuclear weapons development.

    The current approach to the region “focuses on three vital areas: economics, governance, and security” to achieve a “free and open Indo-Pacific,” according to the State Department.

    “By free, we mean nations will be free from coercion and able to protect their sovereignty,” Schriver said in an August talk at the American Enterprise Institute.

    During that speech, Schriver said the current Indo-Pacific strategy is “not aimed at any particular country, but there should be little doubt that much of the Chinese behavior is demonstrating objectives that run counter to our objectives for a free and open Indo Pacific,” according to the DOD.

    Since 2017, the Navy has ramped up freedom-of-navigation operations, sailing regularly within 12 nautical miles of China’s claimed islands and reefs.

    Schriver last week said “there’s not necessarily an expectation that they roll back the land reclamation — what they’ve done on the island-building is done … [but] we hope that they will not deploy additional military systems and in fact remove the military systems on these outposts,” according to the USNI News report.

    “It’s our intent to make sure that no one country can change international law or the status of the South China Sea,” he added, according to the report.

    Further information on what the new strategy might hold was not available Wednesday.

    The summit will open with a session on “the U.S. vision for Indo-Pacific Security,” according to the Shangri-La Dialogue agenda. Also on the agenda are Korean security, “China and international security cooperation” and “preventing conflict in contested domains.”

    doornbos.caitlin@stripes.com
    Twitter: @CaitlinDoornbos

    • karl,

      Marvel Studios is gonna do https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shang-Chi next, I’m sure after they saw the success of Crazy Rich Asians , like Black Panther was all black, it is suppose to be an all Asian film.

      but after reading about Wave, I hope Marvel skips Shang-Chi (I’ve never even heard of him) and tackles the Indo-Pacific region with Wave. Namor supposedly is in the works too, so perfect team-up right there.

      But this War of the Realm stuff seems a clue to where MCU might be going as well,

      • Sadly, Hollywood these days won’t go negative on China. China’s a big market, and demonizing them just isn’t profitable.

        • karlgarcia says:

          One movie house here was reported to have shown endgame with Chinese subtitles.

          • In the long run, I’m thinking these Marvel movies will only make Americans of the Chinese , karl.

            From a wider perspective, the way Star Trek generated new types of scientists & engineers; then Star Wars, more the hero journey than tech stuff; then MCU which melds Star Trek and Star Wars genre together,

            the nuance between Captain America and Ironman, in Civil War, plus Thanos 50% solution, not only sets up for new tech generation, more heroes too, but also new moralists, Captain America, no budging type; Ironman, benefit the majority; Thanos, de-weed thus letting better crop grow.

            Not to mention that Thanos retired in the rice terraces over there. 😉

            All types of morality will eventually play out now and the next generation, plus all the Quantum Realm stuff.

            the Chinese IMHO will be better for it, than not. I hope Joe takes Joe jr. to see these movies.

            • karlgarcia says:

              China has been put to Hollywood’s map thanks to the Kwai Chang Cain series of David Caradeine and The Once upon a time in China series by Jet Li and of course Hong Kong stars like Jackie Chan. And As Popoy said Chinization of America was way back from the days of the rail roads.
              As far as Americanization goes from Mickey Dee’s to Mickey Mousethe influence has spread. And Mickey was the longtime icon of Disney and Disney now owns Marvel, yeah America’s hold on pop culture is very tight.

      • karlgarcia says:

        👍👍

        • karlgarcia says:

          Just Google translate.This is supposed to be serious, a serious joke .

          Babala po!!😱 Guys kung sino man pong hindi pa nakakaalam! Alert po tayong lahat mga kababayan. Sinugod na daw ng China ang Palawan. Nagtext samin yung kamag anak naming seaman. Ang dami na daw dumaan na barko at eroplano ng China. Hindi pinalabas sa TV baka kac magpanic ang lahat. Paki share nlng po para malaman din ng iba. Ma’s maganda na makapag handa tayo. World war III na ata ito😱. Pero dahil kakampi natin ang bansang Amerika at Japan. Darating sila kasama ang Avengers, Suicide Squad, Fantastic Four, X-men, Spiderman, Batman, Wonder Woman, at Superman. Sa Japan naman ay ipapadala nila sina Naruto, Sasuke, Sakura, Kakashi, at ang limang “KAGE” (Hokage, Kazekage, Mizukage, Tzuchikage, at Raikage). Tutulong din daw sina Captain Barbell, Lastikman, Dyesebel, Cardo ft. Onyok, at si Awra, Gagamboy, Darna, Superma’am, Robinhood, The Revenger Squad, mga Sangre sa Encantadia at mga Bagani hindi pa kasama ang Tatlong Bibe dahil back up lng sila

  20. karlgarcia says:

    Is dropping Asia-Pacific and changing it to Indo-Pacific telling us that Obama was correct after all?

    https://thediplomat.com/2019/04/advancing-democracy-in-the-us-free-and-open-indo-pacific-strategy/

    Excerpts.

    The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has been translating the U.S. Free and Open Indo-Pacific strategy (FOIP) into more concrete initiatives over the past few months across what officials have termed as three pillars – security, economics, and governance. But at this point, the governance pillar, which is short for enhancing democracy, human rights, good governance, and civil society, remains by far least developed of the three. Though some efforts have begun to be advanced thus far, making further inroads will require managing ongoing challenges as well as furthering opportunities in concert with allies, partners, and other interested actors for the rest of 2019 and beyond.
    The challenge of advancing governance as a pillar in U.S. Asia strategy is certainly not new. While advancing democracy and human rights is often mentioned alongside security and economics as a longstanding objective in post-World War II U.S. foreign policy, in reality there has been much change in that continuity. The balance between U.S. interests and ideals has varied across time in part due to disagreements within the United States about what that balance ought to be as well as the complexity of regime types that Washington has had to deal with in the region itself. That difficulty has been compounded in recent years due to a confluence of factors, including the overreaction to the Freedom Agenda advanced during the George W. Bush years and perception that China’s rise ought to further discipline Washington’s ideological impulses on this score.
    But the challenge of advancing governance as a pillar in U.S. Asia strategy has also gotten more complex with the advent of the Trump administration and FOIP. For one, a series of trends, including fears of a democratic retreat, rising populism, and the proliferation of technologies that enable authoritarianism, have only further muddied the context for the advancement of American ideals. For another, the Trump administration’s own issues with democracy and human rights – including the president’s anti-democratic actions at home and praise of dictators abroad – has also admittedly widened the perceptions gap between what Washington does itself and what it tells others to do, even though U.S. policy continues to be advanced more quietly and selectively at the working level and through a range of established and important democratic assistance programs.

  21. karlgarcia says:

    We exercise with everybody just like in a gym.

    https://ph.news.yahoo.com/ph-us-japan-india-navies-063904062.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.