A Formula For U.S. Long Term Strategic Vision

Although by far the most powerful country in the world, the U.S. is suffering from a lack of long term vision. The individual citizen is as much at fault for this condition as the politician or the military industrial complex.

From our relationships with each other and with other countries, from corporate board rooms to Wall Street stock run ups, we must use long term strategic vision in lieu of pursuing short term gains.

Polarization, ignoring environmental and  geopolitical realities, engaging in costly war intrusions, neglecting education/infrastructure and accumulating a $39 Trillion National Debt, heavily mortgaging future generations, are all symptoms of our lack of long term strategic vision.

Geopolitical Realities and the US Role

George Friedman accurately addressed the historical geopolitical state in a recent article:

“To put it simply, a vast swath of the Eurasian landmass (understood to be Europe and Asia together) is in political, military and economic disarray.

Drawing on the recollection of Desert Storm  it was assumed that American power could reshape the Islamic world at will after the US was attacked September 11th, 2001. All power has limits, but the limits of American power were not visible until later in the 2000’s.

At that point two other events intervened.

The first was the re-emergence of Russia as at least a regional power when it invaded Georgia in 2008. [The invasion tactic continued with the Ukraine War]

The other was, of course, the financial crisis. Both combined to define the current situation. [COVID continued the strain on the world economy]

The United States is, by far, the worlds most powerful nation, That does not mean that the United States can — or has an interest to — solve the problems of the world, contain the forces that are at work or stand in front of those forces and compel them to stop. Even the toughest guy in the bar can’t take on the entire bar and win.”

China the Peace Maker 

David Grammig enlightens us in an article in “Geopolitical Monitor “to an alternative to war and debt laden international finance being practiced by the Chinese:

“Geopolitical calculations are as much a reason for this 2-trillion-dollar project as economic ones.

The OBOR project represented one of China’s new overarching foreign policy goals, and it demonstrated a willingness and ability to challenge old power structures, especially in Central Asia and the Middle East.

The Silk Road, or OBOR project, aimed at creating an enormous economic bloc and fostering trade, cultural exchange, political collaboration, and military cooperation among its members – under Chinese domination. [ The recent military competition against U.S. interests and associated weapons buildup by China with threats to Taiwan served as a diversion from China’s overarching foreign policy goals through the Silk Road Project]

An obvious competitor against Russia’s Eurasian Union and India’s Act East and Connect Central Asia initiatives, the OBOR project had many Central Asian and Middle Eastern states justifiably worried of being caught up in a race for dominance in the region, producing somewhat cautious reactions to China’s big plans. Yet, some countries in the region – even those torn by sectarian conflict – may still be inclined to step into a new age due to China’s vast investments and its associated desire to protect its economic engagements.

The United States and its military interventions on the other hand, which aimed at securing political influence and protecting economic interests, bore no sustainable fruits and have led to growing instability in the region. Furthermore, US policy in the Middle East yielded anti-American resentment in the public and political spheres.

China’s approach, however, will most likely not lead to demonstrations, burning flags, and attacks against its embassies, because it will not be seen as a war-mongering imperialistic force, giving itself a chance to establish itself as a partner whose outstretched hand is worth taking.”

The US Market Mirage 

Rana Foroohar demonstrates in Time Magazine how the folly of short term thinking often drives poor investment in the stock market when assessing the value of companies:

“One of the hardest-dying ideas in economics is that stock price accurately reflects the fundamental value of a given firm. It’s easy to understand why this misunderstanding persists: price equals value is a simple idea in a complex world. But the truth is that the value of firms in the market and their value within the real economy are, as often as not, disconnected. In fact, the Street regularly punishes firms hardest when they are making the decisions that most enhance their real economic value, causing their stock price to sink.

There are thousands of examples I could cite, but here’s a particularly striking one: the price of Apple stock fell roughly 25% the year it introduced the iPod. The technology that would kick-start the greatest corporate turnaround in the history of capitalism initially disappointed, selling only 400,000 units in its debut year, and the company’s stock reflected that. Thankfully, Steve Jobs didn’t give a fig. He stuck with the idea, and today nine Apple i Devices are sold somewhere in the world every second.  CEOs, who are paid mostly in stock and live in fear of being punished by the markets, race to hit the numbers rather than simply making the best decisions for their businesses long term. One National Bureau of Economic Research study found that 80% of executives would forgo innovation-generating spending if it meant missing their quarterly earnings figures.

Nobody–not Economists, not CEOs and not policymakers–thinks that’s good for real economic growth. Yet the markets stay up because of the dysfunctional feedback loops. Eventually, of course, interest rates will rise, money won’t be cheap anymore, and markets will go back down. None of it will reflect the reality on the ground, for companies or consumers, any more than it did during the boom times.”

Achieving Strategic Vision

From the above analysis by experts, it is apparent that the US is in dire need of strategic vision.  To achieve it we must:

Face  environmental, geopolitical and economic realities, stop war interventions and invest in relationships within and without our country by offering mutual collaboration.

Cease dwelling on threat and build long term infrastructure, education and international development.  The threats will melt away.

Invest for the long term at the stock holder, company and  national levels based on a strategy dealing with present day and long term challenges in education, communication and society value transitions.

Elect a Congress and an Administration that knows how to strike a balance between long and short term actions. We must then let them know what we think regularly by communicating with them.

Know that most cultures and societies in upheaval today are watching our national model and choosing whether or not to support it, ignore it or attack it.

The Future Is American - China Does Not Have What We Have

 

WALL STREET JOURNAL" - Red Scare By Matthew Hennessey

"You can’t steal your way to greatness. And you can’t bluff your way to hegemony.
Communism is a self-defeating ideology—impoverished, weak and ugly. So don’t worry too much about the future. It’s got America written all over it."

______________________________________________________________________________________

"President Trump’s visit to China has prompted Americans to reflect, as we periodically do, on the state of our superpower. Some say the future is Chinese. Don’t worry. It isn’t.

The U.S. is rich, powerful and attractive. We are perhaps the richest, most powerful and most attractive country that’s ever been. Had we been blessed with only one of those attributes, we’d still be a formidable player on the global stage. In the event, we’re 3-for-3. We are crushing it.

 
Run down the list. Almost all the world’s top companies are American. The reason is simple: Ours is an open economy governed by the rule of law. Anyone can start a company and grow it. You don’t need an uncle in the Politburo.

 
The U.S. has Nvidia. We have Apple, Microsoft, Google, Meta and Tesla. We have the big, healthy and transparent financial institutions. We have Walmart. Our ability to project both hard and soft power is unrivaled. We have the NBA. We have the Northrop B-2 Spirit. We have Sydney Sweeney.

 
When you look at it that way, it’s laughable to say we are in a competition for the future with China. What do they have? What have they done? TikTok. That’s pretty much it.

 
Name a Chinese movie star with global box-office appeal. Name a top Chinese athlete playing in an elite sports league. Name a Chinese musician who could pack stadiums around the world like Taylor Swift or Beyoncé. Name a Chinese writer or thinker whose ideas have infiltrated the intellectual discourse. Name a clothing brand or style originating in China that has conquered the world. Name a Chinese product that you can’t live without.

 
You got nothing. Be honest.

Now name a recent military engagement that the Chinese have fought and won. Their soldiers are untested. Their navy plays sharks and minnows with Filipino fishing boats. Their supply chains run on the principles of corruption and inefficiency that are the communist hallmark.

 
There is precedent for our fear of Chinese power. In the 1970s conventional wisdom held that the Soviet Union commanded a lethal modern military machine. They had the firepower and manpower to overwhelm us in a direct confrontation. Then Soviet tanks rolled into Afghanistan and the world saw how limp the threat was. The Russians hadn’t built a war machine. They’d centrally planned a paper tiger.

 
No one should want war between the U.S. and China. But if it comes to that, I know which side I’d rather be on. The team that took Fallujah—twice. The team that neutralized Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan. The team that snatched Maduro.

 
Americans have a reputation as yokels and navel-gazers. That’s not reality. We are actually quite cosmopolitan. We can be open-minded and self-critical. We read our own reviews—even the bad ones. We know what people think of us. Most of it is motivated by envy.

 
The reality is, the world is with us. If they could, they would be us. Nobody wants to be China.

 
No one in Albania or Botswana dreams of living in a low-income, censorship-and-surveillance state. They want to live in a modern, prosperous society with free and fair elections. People risk everything to come here, to build new and hopeful lives in the unsexy parts of our country—midsize cities, inner-ring suburbs, rundown areas.

 
Everywhere you go in the U.S. you find immigrants from around the world, raising families, building businesses, investing in their futures. That is a vote of confidence, a revealed preference. It doesn’t happen in China.

 
Tune out the partisan noise and the communist propaganda. China’s per-capita GDP is in the neighborhood of Mexico’s. Its economy is dominated by state-owned enterprises—phony businesses, in other words. They don’t engage in real competition in open markets. They don’t report real numbers. Everything is a mirage intended to give the illusion of strength.

 
You can’t steal your way to greatness. And you can’t bluff your way to hegemony.

 
Communism is a self-defeating ideology—impoverished, weak and ugly. So don’t worry too much about the future. It’s got America written all over it."

The Future Is Not Chinese  

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Matthew Hennessey is deputy editorial features editor at The Wall Street Journal and former managing editor of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.From 2007–2009 he was assistant editor of Carnegie Council's Policy Innovations online magazine and the Council's staff writer.

A First Estimate Of The Costs Of Militarized Rivalry with China

 

"According to Jennifer Kavanagh, Senior Fellow & Director of Military Analysis at Defense Priorities, the U.S. has spent at least $3.4 trillion countering China militarily since 2012. This figure, an average of $260 billion a year, is more than total U.S. spending on 20 years of war in Afghanistan ($2.3 trillion)."

__________________________________________________________________________________

"This report provides the first estimate of the amount the U.S. has spent competing with China in the military domain over the period between 2012 and 2024. This period follows then-President Barack Obama’s November 2011 announcement of his intention to “pivot” U.S. attention from the Middle East toward Asia. In addition to Department of Defense spending, the analysis also includes relevant expenditures by the intelligence agencies, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Energy, and the State Department. The estimate is a best approximation of total spending focused on military competition with China – and excludes costs associated with economic or technological competition, for example. It also likely represents an undercount of the actual total China-focused military spending due to conservative methodological decisions made throughout the analysis.

Broken down by government agency, the Navy and Marine Corps are responsible for an estimated 33% of the total cost estimate for spending on militarized rivalry with China, followed by Defense Agencies (25%), the Air Force and Space Force (15%) and the Army (14%).

The paper also looks at some of the opportunity costs of this spending: Completely redoing the nation’s air traffic control system ($31.5 billion) and repairing all of the bridges currently rated in poor condition ($319 billion) would comprise about 10 percent of the expense of U.S. military competition with China between 2012-2024. Alternatively, the United States could fund about 85 years of tuition-free college education for all U.S. college goers."

VIEW THE FULL REPORT

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Jennifer Kavanagh

Jennifer Kavenaugh is a Senior Fellow & Director of Military Analysis, Defense Priorities.jennifer.kavanagh@defp.orgWebsiteA political scientist by training, Kavanagh has spent her career studying U.S. national security and defense policy. Kavanagh’s research focuses on U.S. military strategy, force structure and defense budgeting, the defense industrial base, and U.S. military deployments and interventions.

"WE THE PEOPLE" AND A FINANCIAL BAROMETER OF THE FUTURE

The link below is the official US Government spending web site, updated to reflect the current 2010 annual trend:

USA Spending



Here is a quote from the following link on the national debt:

The Financial Position of the United States

"Foreigners own more than $15.6 trillion of US financial assets, or 107% of GDP. Americans own $11.5 trillion of foreign assets, approximately 78.9% of US GDP.

Foreign holdings of US assets are concentrated in debt. Americans own more foreign equity and foreign direct investment than foreigners own in the United States, but foreigners hold nearly four times as much US debt as Americans hold in foreign debt.

15.2% of all US debt is owed to foreigners. Of the $7.9 trillion Americans owe to foreigners, $3.9 trillion is owed by the federal government. 48% of US treasury securities are held by foreigners.Foreigners hold $1.28 trillion in agency- and government sponsored enterprise-backed securities, and another $2.33 trillion in US corporate bonds.

Foreigners hold 24% of domestic corporate debt and 17% of domestic corporate equity."

You may also be interested in the following link:

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20100830_china_rumors_central_bank_chiefs_defection?utm_source=GWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=100830&utm_content=GIRimage&elq=9f381a1f851341cfa81049351b5b498d

It reads in part:


"Rumors have been circulating in China that People’s Bank of China (PBC) Gov. Zhou Xiaochuan may have left the country. The rumors appear to have started following reports on Aug. 28 which cited Ming Pao, a Hong Kong-based news agency, saying that because of an approximately $430 billion loss on U.S. Treasury bonds, the Chinese government may punish some individuals within PBC, including Zhou. Although Ming Pao on Aug. 30 published a report on its website indicating that the prior report was fabricated by a mainland news site that had attributed the false information to Ming Pao, rumors of Zhou’s defection have spread around China intensively, and Zhou’s name has been blocked from Internet search engines in China."

Keep an eye on where "We the Peoples" money is being spent and how much cumulative national debt We the People are carrying to gauge the future of the great democratic experience in the United States.