most underrated president

Bumped for an answer to the same question I had (Teach?! Needs took my question!). Not sure I'm even on board with the Westward Expansion bit. I mean, I'm cool with folks wanting to move out west -- hits rather close to home, in fact. But the idea that it was our "Destiny", which rather implies Divine right (whether you call them The Fates or Yahweh or Babe Ruth, Destiny is a PC way of saying "God(dess)'s will) yes, I find abhorent. Because it was precisely this notion of "Destiny" that absolved 19th Century America of genocide in history books up until quite recently. It has never been any society's "Destiny" to completely destroy any other society. You cannot seperate "Manifest Destiny" from genocide.

 

That, and "Communist" China is anything but. Proponents of the Domino Theory owe me $5 plus inflation adjustment.

 

Have to disagree on Eisenhower, though I suppose it depends on whether you're discussing the administration or just Ike. The relative calm and prosperity sandwiched between the 40s and the 60s disguises the social and political changes that affect us to this day.

Not much happened on social policy, but the Eisenhower administration set the tone for defense and foreign policies. You had the previously mentioned interstate highways, which ultimately benefitted commerce, but its original intent was to aid the military, and the most notable of defense/civilian projects. ARPA would ultimately change the way we communicate. While the Sputnik Shock forced Ike's hand on NASA, you can't deny the space program's effect on technology.

And while the CIA was technically founded under Truman's watch, the Eisenhower administration set the course for how the agency interacts with the State Dep, with the Dulles brothers heading them.

Sure, Ike was no LBJ or FDR, but to characterize his presidency as laissez faire ignores what was happening in the background. If I were typing this post before 1979, I would rate him as a really good, but with the power of hindsight, I have to lay some of the blame for the Islamic Revolution on him.

 

Carter came up short as president, but you don't give the guy justice on two points. First, he does "get it" now, as he is a very effective ex-president. Second, the cure for the inflation brought on by the oil shocks of the mid-70s was to tighten the money supply. In other words, raise interest rates. Which he did, and he was blamed for the highest "misery index" in history. True, but fiscal discipline requires its dose of discomfort.

Nixon gave us the oil shocks of the 70s. He sucked as president, and did not even finish his term. Failure.

Reagan did not do the painful stuff. He gave us deficit spending like no administration before him. His fiscal policy was very relaxed, but his administration made up for it by tightening up the tax loopholes.

BTW, about Bush and having his head us his (economic) ass, Paul Volcker has given 75% chance of a dollar crisis within the next 5 years, unless there is some drastic measure to deal with the various debts brought about by the most recent adminstration. A 40% devaluation of the dollars will yield a 40% increase in the price of imports. To prop up the dollar during such a crisis, we could see short term interest rates go up very rapidly 3-400 bps.

W might just be the most over-rated president ever. In fact, he might make a combination of Nixon and Carter look good.

 

How has it been beneficial? Do they respect our intellectual property? Do they compete fairly wrt trade? China is an enemy. It's not a "let's start up a draft so that we can have a large enough army in 2007 to invade" enemy. But for all the sh** talked about Old Europe, China's interests conflict with ours over and over again, and (this is the important part) they don't compromise, they don't adjust, they bulldoze ahead with their agenda.

I would have thought the border clash ca. 1966 would have done that.

 

Dave your views are too extreme even for me.

1) China is only communist in name. Its eco is more open than France and getting more open by the day. Just go for a visit you'll see. You could basically do anything you want, within the laws of their land of course, which unfortunately is still not the most established system but they're working on it diligently.

2) China has acted responsibly to the point of self-sacrifice. During the 97 financial crisis they could've gone the easy and widely expected route of devaluing their currecy. That would've created a begger-thy-neighbor situation for the whole Asia and China would've gained market shares. But instead they tightened their belts and toughed it out, for the sake of regional stability. Yeah with hindsight you would say they're doing that for themselves too but in the middle of the crisis they didn't know for sure, just like everybody else, including Greenspan. But they chose the responsible instead of the selfish thing to do.

3) China is helping the US tremendous in the war on terror.

4) About IP rights. It's mainly due to severe poverty. The country is trying the modernize, but average GDP is still $1,000 per capita. By comparison, a Japanese student spends about $22,000 a year. Now you tell me, which one of them is more willing to risk a little government penalty to copy a Windows 2000 that normally costs $100 in a friendly neighborhood computer store? Give them some time. The government is doing all it could.

I could go on but you get my point. I find your views extreme because your premise is we have to find an enemy in somebody. How about we're all just friends, or at least poeple who're civil to each other? And by trade and eco activities help each other prosper in the long run. What's wrong with that?

 

China's economy is not more open than France. At least, foreigners are not allowed to hold yuan, and their accounting systems are not transparent in China.

What has China done for the War on Terror? Probably about as much as Condi Rice, i.e. nothing.

 

In China, most of the eco is being privatized. France is basically a socialist state with heavy government ownership.

Acct system is not transparent enough yet but it's tremendously more transparent then just 5 years ago. The rate of improvement in a huge and backward country like that is simply extraordinary. Look at it in a dynamic way, they'll be more capitalistic then the rest of the world in a very short time.

About the war on terror. China is helping the US in the areas of intelligence gathering and sharing, preventing money laundering by the terrorists, patrolling the Afghan China border so Bin Ladin's people can't find refuge in that area, chairing the six-side North Korea meeting so the US could free up resources from dealing with North Korea now and focus on the Middle East, etc.

 

Most countries don't respect our IP. And China owns a ton of our debt. They're no more our enemy than France is.

You would be wrong.

 

So says an Aussie whose government just made it difficult for the foriegn ownership of land. I'm talking about the trend here. China started with a low base. If you compare the absolutes you're just picking on people. But if you look at the rate of improvement it's simply extraordinary IMHO.

As for war on terror, I did back it up. You just too trigger-happy and made the accusation before you read it.

And one more thing, stop stalking me Caesar. But at least you haven't neg-repped me this time yet.

PS: I'm retracting the comparison with France. Not a meaningful comparison. Was just trying to make a point but it seems like it's confusing matter more than clarifying it. So I officially retract it.

 

That's a good point. China is basically financing our war deficits at this point. China is much more of a friend to the US than the media has given it credit for.

 

Minor favor? If China doesn't tighten the Afghan border, Bin Laden could easily stay there and build a palace.

And the NK situation, I know what? Are you trying to say I know something but then try to hide it? Or maybe you're just narrow-minded and have to pick on China. China was pressured into this role reluctantly by the US. Does resolving the NK benefit China too? Yes. Does it benefit the US too? Of course.

And why do you expect China to do everything for free. It's helping the US, and US is helping it. Isn't that what friends would do for each other? Your logic seems to be someone either does things for you for free or that someone is not helping you. Maybe I should move to Australia, do people there do things for other people for free, shooting Wombats aside, that is?

 

Again the trend Caesar. The trend is your friend. China is moving to be more open. Aussies are moving to be more closed.

So you're not stalking me. Phew. I'm such a paranoid. How about the neg-rep last time, did I dream that up too? Caesar you're lame.

 

Ah, but you still have to worry about bribing a provincial Communist Party official if you want to do business in Australia, don't you? Or am I thinking of another country?

 

Or paying some huge amount of PR fees to some ex-Congressmen or ex-Governors, whichever suits you better.

 

Well I'm really good friends with some banks. Not sure if that clarifies the definition of the "friendship" though. But they seem friendly to me. And they've never acted irresponsibly to jeopardize my finances. I'll take what I can get and leave the rest to the philosophers.

 

China has never patrolled that border so tightly as the way they're doing it now. I'm just going to leave it at that. Feel free to put any spin on it.

 

Really? Do they let foreigner own land finally in Darwin? Because there're a few water front properties I want to buy there.