Skip to comments.Old Picture Foretells Our Future Under President Obama
Posted on 04/12/2010 10:06:33 AM PDT by X180A
The author, Fareed Zakaria, fortells was interviewed (emphasis added).
"As Mr. Zakaria sees it, the economic dysfunctions in America today are the product not of deep inefficiencies within the American economy, but of specific government policies which could be reformed quickly and relatively easily to put the country on a more stable footing. A set of sensible reforms could be enacted tomorrow, he says, to trim wasteful spending and subsidies, increase savings, expand training in science and technology, secure pensions, create a workable immigration process and achieve significant efficiencies in the use of energy if only the current political process werent crippled by partisanship, special-interest agendas, a sensation-driven media, ideological attack groups and legislative gridlock."
(Excerpt) Read more at graphics8.nytimes.com ...
What’s the title?
I can make it out.
It’s something about “World”.
What would that leave? One party rule? Dictatorship?
“The Post-American World”
The Post American World.
Gift from his bud Hugo.
Quick and easy?? Who’s he kidding?
to trim wasteful spending and subsidies, increase savings, expand training in science and technology, secure pensions, create a workable immigration process and achieve significant efficiencies in the use of energy
Maybe if you have a King, it’s quick and easy. Obviously not in a democratic system...
I checked over at Amazon.
The Post-American World (Paperback)
~ Fareed Zakaria
Thomas Friedman: You’re absolutely right—it is about two things. The book says, America has a problem and the world has a problem. The world’s problem is that it’s getting hot, flat and crowded and that convergence—that perfect storm—is driving a lot of negative trends. America’s problem is that we’ve lost our way—we’ve lost our groove as a country. And the basic argument of the book is that we can solve our problem by taking the lead in solving the world’s problem.
Zakaria: Explain what you mean by “hot, flat and crowded.”
Friedman: There is a convergence of basically three large forces: one is global warming, which has been going on at a very slow pace since the industrial revolution; the second—what I call the flattening of the world—is a metaphor for the rise of middle-class citizens, from China to India to Brazil to Russia to Eastern Europe, who are beginning to consume like Americans. That’s a blessing in so many ways—it’s a blessing for global stability and for global growth. But it has enormous resource complications, if all these people—whom you’ve written about in your book, The Post American World—begin to consume like Americans. And lastly, global population growth simply refers to the steady growth of population in general, but at the same time the growth of more and more people able to live this middle-class lifestyle. Between now and 2020, the world’s going to add another billion people. And their resource demands—at every level—are going to be enormous. I tell the story in the book how, if we give each one of the next billion people on the planet just one sixty-watt incandescent light bulb, what it will mean: the answer is that it will require about 20 new 500-megawatt coal-burning power plants. That’s so they can each turn on just one light bulb!
Zakaria: In my book I talk about the “rise of the rest” and about the reality of how this rise of new powerful economic nations is completely changing the way the world works. Most everyone’s efforts have been devoted to Kyoto-like solutions, with the idea of getting western countries to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. But I grew to realize that the West was a sideshow. India and China will build hundreds of coal-fire power plants in the next ten years and the combined carbon dioxide emissions of those new plants alone are five times larger than the savings mandated by the Kyoto accords. What do you do with the Indias and Chinas of the world?
Friedman: I think there are two approaches. There has to be more understanding of the basic unfairness they feel. They feel like we sat down, had the hors d’oeuvres, ate the entrée, pretty much finished off the dessert, invited them for tea and coffee and then said, “Let’s split the bill.” So I understand the big sense of unfairness—they feel that now that they have a chance to grow and reach with large numbers a whole new standard of living, we’re basically telling them, “Your growth, and all the emissions it would add, is threatening the world’s climate.” At the same time, what I say to them—what I said to young Chinese most recently when I was just in China is this: Every time I come to China, young Chinese say to me, “Mr. Friedman, your country grew dirty for 150 years. Now it’s our turn.” And I say to them, “Yes, you’re absolutely right, it’s your turn. Grow as dirty as you want. Take your time. Because I think we probably just need about five years to invent all the new clean power technologies you’re going to need as you choke to death, and we’re going to come and sell them to you. And we’re going to clean your clock in the next great global industry. So please, take your time. If you want to give us a five-year lead in the next great global industry, I will take five. If you want to give us ten, that would be even better. In other words, I know this is unfair, but I am here to tell you that in a world that’s hot, flat and crowded, ET—energy technology—is going to be as big an industry as IT—information technology. Maybe even bigger. And who claims that industry—whose country and whose companies dominate that industry—I think is going to enjoy more national security, more economic security, more economic growth, a healthier population, and greater global respect, for that matter, as well. So you can sit back and say, it’s not fair that we have to compete in this new industry, that we should get to grow dirty for a while, or you can do what you did in telecommunications, and that is try to leap-frog us. And that’s really what I’m saying to them: this is a great economic opportunity. The game is still open. I want my country to win it—I’m not sure it will.
Zakaria: I’m struck by the point you make about energy technology. In my book I’m pretty optimistic about the United States. But the one area where I’m worried is actually ET. We do fantastically in biotech, we’re doing fantastically in nanotechnology. But none of these new technologies have the kind of system-wide effect that information technology did. Energy does. If you want to find the next technological revolution you need to find an industry that transforms everything you do. Biotechnology affects one critical aspect of your day-to-day life, health, but not all of it. But energy—the consumption of energy—affects every human activity in the modern world. Now, my fear is that, of all the industries in the future, that’s the one where we’re not ahead of the pack. Are we going to run second in this race?
Friedman: Well, I want to ask you that, Fareed. Why do you think we haven’t led this industry, which itself has huge technological implications? We have all the secret sauce, all the technological prowess, to lead this industry. Why do you think this is the one area—and it’s enormous, it’s actually going to dwarf all the others—where we haven’t been at the real cutting edge?
Title of the book is “THE POST-AMERICAN WORLD”
I posted part of an Amazon review exchange.
We’re in big trouble ... .
The excuse marxists use is that force will only be required until a new kind of people have been created, at that point everyone will just act in concert with the goals of society. They kill a lot of people in the process, and it still doesn't work. It never will, but the marxists keep on trying.
I couldn’t condemn anyone just for reading a book like that, I have read some strange tomes myself but now is seems obvious that Obama was looking for pointers.
1) Make significant and permanent decreases in the federal income tax rate. For those productive Americans who contribute to the system, this would put more disposable income in our pockets which, in turn, would ramp up demand for goods and services. By making them long run cuts, it allows for long-term planning of consumer durables (e.g., houses, cars, etc.) and more qualified buyers due to higher disposable income. If you're worried that the cuts would increase the deficit, look at the experience with the large tax cuts in the past (e.g., the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts) and read about the Laffer Curve and compare it to past cuts in England and India.
2) Lower corporate tax rates. Cutting tax rates is NOT the same as tax incentives. Businesses will only hire more people if the demand for their product increases (hence, #1 above). If you let them keep more of what they do earn, they have the ability to hire more workers when demand warrants it. While Ireland's a little shaky right now (along with most of the EU), it's employment levels soared when they lowered their corporate tax rates. If we did that here given our resource base, we blow the Pacific Rim out of the water.
So, why aren't we doing this? Because politicians think the only way to maintain power is to give your money away to someone else. Come November I, for one, am going to try and tell them that approach really pisses me off...
This was posted on the FR only about 20 times.
Is this from that shaved chimp on CNN?
I’d never seen the photo before, even though it was published over two years ago. I just searched and found a few FR posts about the book but they were about a year old. Not trying to beat a dead horse. It was the photo that I found revealing.
When was the photo taken? Your post says “old” pic. How old?
The angle of sun is from top left to lower right. The open pages of the book are not cast in the shadow of Obama's body as it would seem they should be. They are brightly lit. His body would cast a shadow on the book held on that side of his body.
Also, it appears that the fingers on the book are casting a shadow in the opposite direction from the direction of the sun. I laid a copy of the cover over the cover shown in the photo to see if a graphic element of the cover could appear as a shadow. There are some dark images but not that would seem to match.
The cover of the book in the photo with Obama appears to be placed larger on the book than any sample of the book's cover I can find on the net (perhaps to make it easier to read the title or just a sloppy photoshop work). In fact, the word "American" in the title is actually cut off at the spine binding in the photo with Obama.
If I felt like taking the time, I could drop any book cover over the one shown. It is a pretty easy photoshop job to do.
All Gov'ts (Feds, States, County, city, etc), need to live within their means.
That means, spend no more (including debt repayment) than your receipts.
I know that sounds un-American as we just can't even do that at the family level - but it's got to be done, else we are screwed -short term, medium term and long term....
FWIW, here is Snopes’ take:
The photo was published 21 May of 2008 by the NY Times. It resides on their website to this day: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/05/21/books/obama-reads-533.jpg
As opposed to the photo in this post.
It would be far more comforting to see him reading Churchill's A Gathering Storm.
Recall the ancient maxims declaring it a wise thing to "Know thine enemy"
...Obama was looking for pointers.
The man who follows Truth may well endure the journey alone, but the man who follows Error seeks a host to suffer with him.
>>>The title is “The Post American World” and...this photo is suspect as a photoshop job.<<<
So I downloaded the photo and looked at it using my version of Photoshop CS4.
I also saw the cut-off title of the book. That’s suspect to me.
What’s also suspect is that the original picture shows a mass of pixelation when I blow it up to 1200 percent, but the inset picture at the same resolution shows the letters clearly.
As an old photojournalist myself, your comments about shadows and so forth also make sense.
I’m with you, then, in the “suspicious” category.
In other words... he’s going by the book.
Does everyone love us yet?
Well I’m looking forward to the post Obama world.
Snopes claims it is a real picture.
You just rocked my hobby horse. All that you said is true SO the only answer is ‘GET RID OF THE TYRANT”!! No tyrant has ever gone peacefully or by the voting booth way, they always have to be removed and the sooner, the better. CO
I agree ... but if he sucks in the middle class then he’ll have the 60% he craves dependent on GOVERNMENT.