Who gets U.S. Foreign Aid?

[LilOlLady]

Who gets U.S. Foreign Aid?
December 14, 2008

The U.S. will give an estimated $26 billion in foreign aid in 2008—70% more than when President George W. Bush took office (the figure doesn’t include funds related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). More than 150 countries get financial assistance from the U.S. Here are the six that received the most this year.

http://www.parade.com/news/intelligence ... n-aid.html

Where does this money come from? How do we manage to do this and cannot take care of our own? And we have a deficit of what? $1.5 trillion?

 

[uscitizen]

How much did we give when bush left office though?

 

[Sallow]

Who gets U.S. Foreign Aid?
December 14, 2008

The U.S. will give an estimated $26 billion in foreign aid in 2008—70% more than when President George W. Bush took office (the figure doesn’t include funds related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). More than 150 countries get financial assistance from the U.S. Here are the six that received the most this year.

http://www.parade.com/news/intelligence ... n-aid.html

Where does this money come from? How do we manage to do this and cannot take care of our own? And we have a deficit of what? $1.5 trillion?

When exactly did you learn about this? It's been going on for like a century now.

 

[kaz]

Who gets U.S. Foreign Aid?
December 14, 2008

The U.S. will give an estimated $26 billion in foreign aid in 2008—70% more than when President George W. Bush took office (the figure doesn’t include funds related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). More than 150 countries get financial assistance from the U.S. Here are the six that received the most this year.

http://www.parade.com/news/intelligence ... n-aid.html

Where does this money come from? How do we manage to do this and cannot take care of our own? And we have a deficit of what? $1.5 trillion?

When exactly did you learn about this? It's been going on for like a century now.

Yes, foreign aid is a huge problem. The people should give to where they want their money to go, government shouldn't confiscate it and give it to who the politicians want to give it to. The people give to accountable charities who provide services they support, the government endlessly gives it for political interest and endlessly has it stolen by corrupt government and militant insurgencies because they don't really care where it goes, they just want to use that they gave away other people's money in their campaigns.

 

[Misty]

We have to pay everyone out of guilt or to keep them from bombing us in some cases.

Huge waste of taxpayer money. This is my biggest beef with the way our money is wasted lining the pockets of other corrupt polticians and world leaders.

 

[kaz]

We have to pay everyone out of guilt or to keep them from bombing us in some cases.

Huge waste of taxpayer money. This is my biggest beef with the way our money is wasted lining the pockets of other corrupt polticians and world leaders.

Sounds like we're in agreement over aid, but I didn't understand your point on "to keep them from bombing us." Who doesn't bomb us because we give them aid?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

10 billion in 2000, 28 billion in 2005, 23 billion in Bush' last year.

 

[WillowTree]

We need to cut off all foreign aid. A. Because we're broke, and B. Because it does zip zero nada,, zit good.. check out Haiti,, money pissed away.

 

[whitehall]

It's a good question. When we could afford it it might have been a good idea to send extortion money to countries to keep them happy and friendly toward the US but we can't afford it anymore and the countries don't seem to be all that grateful. We haven't made good foreign policy decisions in a century and our "intelligence" sources are a waste of money also.

 

[Londoner]

*Some* people in this thread have been terribly misinformed by Talk Radio.

They think foreign "aid" is a form of compassionate welfare for the "needy", prompting them to re-litigate the "War-on-Poverty", i.e., "you can't help people by simply giving them money (while not addressing the very lack of discipline that made them needy in the first place. Giving people something for nothing rewards and thus perpetuates the behavior the caused the problem in the first place"). We get it. We all passed 3rd grade (I hope).

But "aid" has never been about "helping" anyone. A superpower doesn't have time to think about such simplistic fantasies. We "help" nations in the 3rd world when it is in our perceived economic interest. For instance, we do not want the globe to contain failed states (especially in our hemisphere), because this would increase the likelihood of said failed state falling into enemy hands, or being a breeding ground for terrorism.

The point of "aid" and "humanitarian intervention" has always been about stabilizing vital resource regions upon which we depend [FYI: by "resource" I don't simply mean oil or precious metals, but labor markets, trade routes, and territory that could otherwise be used by our enemies to train insurgents and plan attacks].

The reason we described the Iraq War as "helping" the citizens of Iraq "escape tyranny" is because it would be against any nation's self-interest to openly declare the motives/strategy behind strategic intervention. [The Brits didn't say they were in India for the spices; no, they were civilizing the world] Listen children: If our enemies got control of the middle east and (say) blocked the Straight of Hormuz, it would destroy the oil market, and gas prices would sky-rocket, thus causing economic shock waves across the globe (which would harm everyone).

It's very hard to discuss this stuff with people who get the majority of their information from popular media (talk radio, TV, newspapers, and the blogosphere). Hannity, Savage, Levine, and Limbaugh don't talk about geopolitics. They give their audience a very simplistic and paranoid narrative about evil islamo-fascists hiding in the closet or liberals stealing their money in order to "save the world". And then the audience rushes to message boards and says the government is wasting their money by helping the needy or stuffing the coffers of foreign politicians. Granted, there is absolutely corruption and incompetence -- the Iraq War is a case in point. But, one some levels, the strategic goal made absolute sense (and it still makes sense to gain more control of the region. This is what Talk Radio Republicans don't get: in most cases, we depend deeply on the global regions which are targeted for "aid" or "humanitarian intervention").

Talk Radio is raising a generation of paranoid angry morons who know nothing about policy (because the government doesn't want them involved in the actual decision making. This is why Washington talks about "evil-doers" rather than oil geopolitics. The willingness of people to be seduced by talk radio allows our leaders are get away with destroying the country, that is, citizens can't hold government accountable if they don't understand the logic of their decisions.)

The ideological system is churning out an army of Jared Loughners who see government devils hiding in the closet, manipulating their minds and money without rhyme or reason. WRONG. There is a reason for why government acts. It's called self-interest.

 

[Trajan]

We need to cut off all foreign aid. A. Because we're broke, and B. Because it does zip zero nada,, zit good.. check out Haiti,, money pissed away.

as it applies to Haiti no doubt, BUT that money buys us influence ergo access.

 

[Queen]

*Some* people in this thread have been terribly misinformed by Talk Radio.

They think foreign "aid" is a form of compassionate welfare for the "needy", prompting them to give re-litigate the "War-on-Poverty"-approach to solving problems, i.e., "you can't help people by simply giving them money (while not addressing the very lack of discipline that made them needy in the first place. Giving people something for nothing rewards and thus perpetuates the behavior the caused the problem in the first place"). We get it. We all passed 3rd grade (I hope).

But "aid" has never been about "helping" anyone. A superpower doesn't have time to think about such simplistic childish fantasies. We "help" nations in the 3rd world when it is in our perceived economic interest. For instance, we do not want the globe to contain unstable, weak, failed states (especially in our hemisphere), because this would increase the likelihood of said failed state falling into enemy hands, or being a breeding ground for terrorism.

The point of "aid" and "humanitarian intervention" has always been about stabilizing vital resource regions upon which we depend [FYI: the term resource is not simply oil or precious metals, but labor markets, trade routes, and territory that could otherwise be used by our enemies to, say, train warriors and plan attacks].

The reason we described the Iraq War as "helping" the citizens of Iraq "escape tyranny" is because it would be against any nation's self-interest to openly declare the motives behind their strategic interventions. [The Brits didn't say they were India for the spices; no, they were civilizing the world] Listen children: If our enemies enemies got control of the middle east and (say) blocked the Straight of Hormuz, it would destroy the oil market, and gas prices would sky-rocket, thus causing economic shock waves across the globe (which would harm the entire globe).

It's very hard to discuss this stuff with people who get the majority of their information from popular media (talk radio, TV, newspapers, and the blogosphere). Sean Hannity, Savage, Levine, and Limbaugh don't talk about geopolitics. They give their audience a very simplistic and paranoid picture of politics. And then the audience rushes to internet message boards and says the government is wasting their money by helping the needy or stuffing the coffers of foreign politicians. Granted, there is absolutely corruption and incompetence -- the Iraq War is a case in point. The strategic goal made sense (and it still makes sense to gain more control of the region), but the execution was corrupt and incompetent. However, we have an entire class of voters don't understand the logic of "aid" and "humanitarian intervention".

Talk Radio is raising a generation of paranoid angry morons who know nothing about policy. (and this is why our leaders are getting away with destroying the country)

I think most of them are too far gone, into the pit of talk radio brainwashing. They don't want to know how things work or why things are done, they only want to spread the right wing propaganda they've learned from Hannity and Limbaugh and the rest. All of this information you're giving them, they won't even read it. They don't want to learn how to think for themselves. They love the rhetoric given to them by the talking heads too much to use their own heads and learn the actual facts.

 

[Londoner]

It's just a disaster to talk geopolitics with Republicans who have been infected by talk radio.

Let me give you an example.

There is evidence (now supported on both sides of the political aisle) that China was willing to become a trading partner after WWII at precisely the moment when the crazed national security culture (lead by men like Dulles) was trumpeting them as evil Communists (for admittedly strategic reasons, however misguided).

So much of the justification for the Vietnam War came out of the insanity of the far right hawks who controlled foreign policy after Roosevelt left office -- these were the earliest neocons, though decidedly less zionist. Their vision of postwar globalism (with America emerging as global leader through strategic military intervention) depended on this rabid anti-communism (designed mostly to provoke conservative isolationists into the realization that America needed a "soft empire" of bases to control/stabilize global markets). Point is: the crazies in the state department needed to turn all these nations into devils in order to justify intervention across the globe (to protect perceived economic interests). This casts the anti-Communism of the Cold War in a far more complex light than you ever hear from today's right wing voter (who gets so much of his history from politics (e.g., Reagan speeches and Limbaugh diatribes), as opposed to heavily researched and footnoted text books, which attempt to go beyond Washington sloganeering).

The problem with postwar anti-Communism is how farcical and paranoid the Dulles & McCarthy narrative was, especially regarding China, who is now our strongest trading partner.

My point. Try to talk to a Talk-Radio-Republican about this stuff and you'll go crazy. They just repeat these myopic bumper stickers about evil government, and evil soviets, and evil liberals, and evil terrorists. You cannot discuss the nuances of geopolitics with these people because they are in a hermetically sealed bubble of dangerously simple talking points. They're literally getting their history from a political machine. They're like liberals who watch Oliver Stone, Al Gore, or Michael Moore movies. They are being seduced by simple stories.

My point. We need to force these passionate well-meaning idiots to get their information from a wider range of sources. We need to get them to see how the Cold War and War on Terrorism are not only about defending the nation from physical attack, but part of a more complex context for global intervention (e.g., the strategic hyping of a national security threat for the purpose of intervention to protect a purely economic interest). We need to help them transition from a simplistic quasi-Biblical rhetoric of "evil-doers" to geopolitics. [This will enable them to analyze actual policies and thus hold their party accountable, rather than merely being useful idiots, cheerleaders.] I had a friend who used to drive around listening to Limbaugh and Levine. He would clutch his steering wheel in anger at liberals, and mexicans, gays, and muslims. It took me a long time to convince him that he wasn't being educated by intellectuals, but agitated by GOP apparatchiks*.

*Don't get me wrong, there are good reasons to be worried about terrorism, and the dissolution of the social fabric, and the destruction of the Constitution, and runaway spending, and social engineering, and the loss of efficient markets to corrupt and incompetent bureaucrats . . . but too many of our voters are getting these important issues from an extremely crude political machine, which leaves them dangerously under-informed and incapable of holding their party accountable.

 

[WillowTree]

Cut off all foreign aid. Geopolitics my lily white azz.

 

[mdn2000]

It's just a disaster to talk geopolitics with Republicans who have been infected by talk radio.

Let me give you an example.

There is evidence (now supported on both sides of the political aisle) that China was willing to become a trading partner after WWII at precisely the moment when the crazed national security culture (lead by men like Dulles) was trumpeting them as evil Communists (for admittedly strategic reasons, however misguided).

So much of the justification for the Vietnam War came out of the insanity of the far right hawks who controlled foreign policy after Roosevelt left office -- these were the earliest neocons, though decidedly less zionist. Their vision of postwar globalism (with America emerging as global leader through strategic military intervention) depended on this rabid anti-communism (designed mostly to provoke conservative isolationists into the realization that America needed a "soft empire" of bases to control/stabilize global markets). Point is: the crazies in the state department needed to turn all these nations into devils in order to justify intervention across the globe (to protect perceived economic interests). This casts the anti-Communism of the Cold War in a far more complex light than you ever hear from today's right wing voter (who gets so much of his history from politics (e.g., Reagan speeches and Limbaugh diatribes), as opposed to heavily researched and footnoted text books, which attempt to go beyond Washington sloganeering).

The problem with postwar anti-Communism is how farcical and paranoid the Dulles & McCarthy narrative was, especially regarding China, who is now our strongest trading partner.

My point. Try to talk to a Talk-Radio-Republican about this stuff and you'll go crazy. They just repeat these myopic bumper stickers about evil government, and evil soviets, and evil liberals, and evil terrorists. You cannot discuss the nuances of geopolitics with these people because they are in a hermetically sealed bubble of dangerously simple talking points. They're literally getting their history from a political machine. They're like liberals who watch Oliver Stone, Al Gore, or Michael Moore movies. They are being seduced by simple stories.

My point. We need to force these passionate well-meaning idiots to get their information from a wider range of sources. We need to get them to see how the Cold War and War on Terrorism are not only about defending the nation from physical attack, but part of a more complex context for global intervention (e.g., the strategic hyping of a national security threat for the purpose of intervention to protect a purely economic interest). We need to help them transition from a simplistic quasi-Biblical rhetoric of "evil-doers" to geopolitics. [This will enable them to analyze actual policies and thus hold their party accountable, rather than merely being useful idiots, cheerleaders.] I had a friend who used to drive around listening to Limbaugh and Levine. He would clutch his steering wheel in anger at liberals, and mexicans, gays, and muslims. It took me a long time to convince him that he wasn't being educated by intellectuals, but agitated by GOP apparatchiks*.

*Don't get me wrong, there are good reasons to be worried about terrorism, and the dissolution of the social fabric, and the destruction of the Constitution, and runaway spending, and social engineering, and the loss of efficient markets to corrupt and incompetent bureaucrats . . . but too many of our voters are getting these important issues from an extremely crude political machine, which leaves them dangerously under-informed and incapable of holding their party accountable.

You gave an example, no, you gave your opinion, now back that up with some evidence to make your opinion credible.

Go ahead, prove anything you posted, take your pick, China a trading partner, I was unaware we have free open access to their market, what exactly are we exporting to China that makes them even close to being an important trading partner, or how about your fantasy about talk radio, can you state anything other than the Marxist Liberal talking points, do you have a real example and some reference material.

Go ahead, I will wait.

 

[Londoner]

It is absolutely reasonable to oppose "aid" based on moral and economic grounds provided you have your argument in order. There are obviously good reasons not to spend money we don't have on causes we can't fix, or worse: we don't want to keep feeding money into a Washington machine that only uses that money to make things worse and/or enrich itself. We get it.

I'm suggesting that if you understood the actual geopolitical reasons for aid and humanitarian intervention, you would be better equipped to defeat "aid" in all it's guises, that is, you would be more skeptical when your government says "can I have trillions to save the Iraqis from Saddam Hussein?" You might pause like William F Buckley did and say that it's a noble cause, but too big for the limited power of government.

When Reagan implemented his structural adjustments program to "improve" or "save" the 3rd world, or when Bush talked about "helping" the Iraqi People get out from under a brutal dictator, the Republican voter did not know how to oppose or question their leaders because they didn't know the real reasons for the intervention. They've been taught to reflexively oppose "aid" when a Democrat implements it, but they are uniquely vulnerable to Pentagon intervention when proposed by their own party. [And so they fail to pose a check to their party's disastrous spending on foreign policy] This is because they're getting their issues from the political machine -- from TV/radio/blogosphere which functions as a party megaphone.

My point is that by understanding why your party spends so much money "spreading democracy" and "saving the world" from evil-doers, you would be able to mount a more effective opposition. You don't want to unwittingly become an unconscious party apparatchik -- someone who blindly fights the Left's spending, while blindly accepting the spending of Reagan and Bush (which eclipsed the spending of Carter and Clinton in ways that should have ended the party. Where were you people for Reagan's Star Wars or Bush's Medicare Part D? When are you going to oppose your party's spending? When are you going to escape Talk Radio?). Which is to say: when the GOP re-takes the presidency in 2012, we need to see more critical policy engagement so the insane spending seen under Reagan and Bush does not happen again. At some point the Tea Party has to oppose the spending of a sitting Republican president. And they need to do it by understanding the real reasons their party spends so much money on global intervention. They need to get away from simplistic support and simplistic opposition. At some point they need to join the discussion at the policy level.

 

[Londoner]

I was unaware we have free open access to their market, what exactly are we exporting to China that makes them even close to being an important trading partner.

Are you suggesting there is no interdependence between say China and Walmart -- that this is not one of the most vital economic relationships ever forged? http://veam.org/papers2010/17-PHVan-VEAM-Aug-2010.pdf

Actually, for a more accessible rendition, start here (link below), just so you get the relationship. When you figure out that our economies are even more connected than mere trade relationships, we'll talk.
International Affairs - Superfusion: How China and America Became One Economy and Why the World's Prosperity Depends on It - Book TV

And no, neither country has free and open access to the other's economy, or are you suggesting we have zero regulations on our end?

Secondly, which part of my theory is liberal or Marxists. Give me the specific Marxist origin of a single sentence*.

The American economy is built from Chinese credit/goods, terrorist crude, and cheap Mexican (3rd world) labor. We have deep partnerships with almost every talk radio demon. In the front of the house your party is told that the nation/globe is under siege by this parade of demons; while in the back of the house our economy is sustained by relationships with the demons -- relationships actively cultivated by your party. Movement Conservatism keeps people in a fog so they don't see the shell game, i.e, the strategic diversions used to cover-up the money loops our politicians form with special interests. It means people like you can't effectively criticize how your party spends money or makes policy. The only thing you're allowed to criticize is social spending, because this benefits the machine which provides you with information. [FYI: the machine doesn't want the tax burden of supporting a solvent middle class of consumers; they'd rather cut their wages and benefits, and then loan them, at a high rate, the money to consume (which leads to over-borrowing and the eventual death of credit markets)]. The left has a similar machine. They want people to be afraid of the temperature boogie man so that they give more money/power to government.

Don't you get it son? The War on Poverty and the War on Terror come from the same place: government, which has devolved into a network of financial loops between special interest groups and their Washington puppets. Listen, you've proved to me that you can oppose the Left, but we need you to get better at policing your own presidents. Your party spent twice as much as Carter and three times as much as Clinton. If you spend 4 times as much as Obama (on, say, a renewed, steroidal version of the War on Terrorism), we're dead.

*(Psst: I get a huge portion of my information on the middle east from the Right leaning CATO institute, which supports Ron Paul vigorously. This is the only part of the Right-leaning universe which mounted an effective critique to the Bush administration's concept of, and spending for the War on Terror).

What do you mean by Marxist and Liberal? I think well-functioning markets are far better at allocating resources and setting prices than government -- and I certainly can't imagine abolishing private property, but I do see a regulatory role for government, however limited. Frankly, I am as worried about communists as I am market fundamentalists. I think the country achieved the correct balance during the postwar years (especially 50s-60s), when the government did more to protect middle class solvency from wild west speculators, that is, I support financial markets being protected by things like Glass-Stegal, and I am amazed that the right has cultivated a group of people who have never studied economics in a rigorous academic context... but who categorically reject all regulations. They have literally been educated by the machine, which is a well funded network of think tanks, publishing companies, and media outlets designed to turn public opinion against any regulation which limits their highly concentrated "too-big-to-fail" leverage over government and the economy.

 

[kaz]

So much of the justification for the Vietnam War came out of the insanity of the far right hawks who controlled foreign policy after Roosevelt left office -- these were the earliest neocons, though decidedly less zionist. Their vision of postwar globalism (with America emerging as global leader through strategic military intervention) depended on this rabid anti-communism (designed mostly to provoke conservative isolationists into the realization that America needed a "soft empire" of bases to control/stabilize global markets). Point is: the crazies in the state department needed to turn all these nations into devils in order to justify intervention across the globe (to protect perceived economic interests)

#1) Regarding Vietnam, I have a hard time calling Democrats Kennedy and LBJ "far right hawks." You need to learn some American history if you're going to pontificate on American history. Eisenhower, who was a Republican but hardly "far right" made some of the treaties, but he never sent troops there. Kennedy sent the original troops and it was LBJ who escalated the war. The US congress was completely dominated by the Democratic party through the 60s.

#2) You don't know what a neocon is. Neocon's aren't far Right and they didn't originate from the Right, they came from the Left. There were a group of liberal Democrats who thought that the safest world was a Democratic one and the military was necessary to spread democracy. Today most neocons do come from the Right, but from the reverse trip. They are comfortable using the military to spread democracy but they learned to love big government spending.

American liberals like using the term for people like Rush Limbaugh to someone say "neocon" means "extreme con." But it doesn't mean that and Rush isn't. Not because he opposes the use of the military for spreading Democracy but because he's actually a fiscal conservative.

 

[mdn2000]

I was unaware we have free open access to their market, what exactly are we exporting to China that makes them even close to being an important trading partner.

Are you suggesting there is no interdependence between say China and Walmart -- that this is not one of the most vital economic relationships ever forged? http://veam.org/papers2010/17-PHVan-VEAM-Aug-2010.pdf

Actually, for a more accessible rendition, start here (link below), just so you get the relationship. When you figure out that our economies are even more connected than mere trade relationships, we'll talk.
International Affairs - Superfusion: How China and America Became One Economy and Why the World's Prosperity Depends on It - Book TV

And no, neither country has free and open access to the other's economy, or are you suggesting we have zero regulations on our end?

Secondly, which part of my theory is liberal or Marxists. Give me the specific Marxist origin of a single sentence*.

The American economy is built from Chinese credit/goods, terrorist crude, and cheap Mexican (3rd world) labor. We have deep partnerships with almost every talk radio demon. In the front of the house your party is told that the nation/globe is under siege by this parade of demons; while in the back of the house our economy is sustained by relationships with the demons -- relationships actively cultivated by your party. Movement Conservatism keeps people in a fog so they don't see the shell game, i.e, the strategic diversions used to cover-up the money loops our politicians form with special interests. It means people like you can't effectively criticize how your party spends money or makes policy. The only thing you're allowed to criticize is social spending, because this benefits the machine which provides you with information. [FYI: the machine doesn't want the tax burden of supporting a solvent middle class of consumers; they'd rather cut their wages and benefits, and then loan them, at a high rate, the money to consume (which leads to over-borrowing and the eventual death of credit markets)]. The left has a similar machine. They want people to be afraid of the temperature boogie man so that they give more money/power to government.

Don't you get it son? The War on Poverty and the War on Terror come from the same place: government, which has devolved into a network of financial loops between special interest groups and their Washington puppets. Listen, you've proved to me that you can oppose the Left, but we need you to get better at policing your own presidents. Your party spent twice as much as Carter and three times as much as Clinton. If you spend 4 times as much as Obama (on, say, a renewed, steroidal version of the War on Terrorism), we're dead.

*(Psst: I get a huge portion of my information on the middle east from the Right leaning CATO institute, which supports Ron Paul vigorously. This is the only part of the Right-leaning universe which mounted an effective critique to the Bush administration's concept of, and spending for the War on Terror).

What do you mean by Marxist and Liberal? I think well-functioning markets are far better at allocating resources and setting prices than government -- and I certainly can't imagine abolishing private property, but I do see a regulatory role for government, however limited. Frankly, I am as worried about communists as I am market fundamentalists. I think the country achieved the correct balance during the postwar years (especially 50s-60s), when the government did more to protect middle class solvency from wild west speculators, that is, I support financial markets being protected by things like Glass-Stegal, and I am amazed that the right has cultivated a group of people who have never studied economics in a rigorous academic context... but who categorically reject all regulations. They have literally been educated by the machine, which is a well funded network of think tanks, publishing companies, and media outlets designed to turn public opinion against any regulation which limits their highly concentrated "too-big-to-fail" leverage over government and the economy.

I hope you do not mind that I take my time to read and think about your post as well as what I believe, I am not so quick to post on things, thanks for the response and the links and even more information, I am looking at it and it will take a bit of time.

 

[mdn2000]

I was unaware we have free open access to their market, what exactly are we exporting to China that makes them even close to being an important trading partner.

Are you suggesting there is no interdependence between say China and Walmart -- that this is not one of the most vital economic relationships ever forged? http://veam.org/papers2010/17-PHVan-VEAM-Aug-2010.pdf

Actually, for a more accessible rendition, start here (link below), just so you get the relationship. When you figure out that our economies are even more connected than mere trade relationships, we'll talk.
International Affairs - Superfusion: How China and America Became One Economy and Why the World's Prosperity Depends on It - Book TV

And no, neither country has free and open access to the other's economy, or are you suggesting we have zero regulations on our end?

Secondly, which part of my theory is liberal or Marxists. Give me the specific Marxist origin of a single sentence*.

The American economy is built from Chinese credit/goods, terrorist crude, and cheap Mexican (3rd world) labor. We have deep partnerships with almost every talk radio demon. In the front of the house your party is told that the nation/globe is under siege by this parade of demons; while in the back of the house our economy is sustained by relationships with the demons -- relationships actively cultivated by your party. Movement Conservatism keeps people in a fog so they don't see the shell game, i.e, the strategic diversions used to cover-up the money loops our politicians form with special interests. It means people like you can't effectively criticize how your party spends money or makes policy. The only thing you're allowed to criticize is social spending, because this benefits the machine which provides you with information. [FYI: the machine doesn't want the tax burden of supporting a solvent middle class of consumers; they'd rather cut their wages and benefits, and then loan them, at a high rate, the money to consume (which leads to over-borrowing and the eventual death of credit markets)]. The left has a similar machine. They want people to be afraid of the temperature boogie man so that they give more money/power to government.

Don't you get it son? The War on Poverty and the War on Terror come from the same place: government, which has devolved into a network of financial loops between special interest groups and their Washington puppets. Listen, you've proved to me that you can oppose the Left, but we need you to get better at policing your own presidents. Your party spent twice as much as Carter and three times as much as Clinton. If you spend 4 times as much as Obama (on, say, a renewed, steroidal version of the War on Terrorism), we're dead.

*(Psst: I get a huge portion of my information on the middle east from the Right leaning CATO institute, which supports Ron Paul vigorously. This is the only part of the Right-leaning universe which mounted an effective critique to the Bush administration's concept of, and spending for the War on Terror).

What do you mean by Marxist and Liberal? I think well-functioning markets are far better at allocating resources and setting prices than government -- and I certainly can't imagine abolishing private property, but I do see a regulatory role for government, however limited. Frankly, I am as worried about communists as I am market fundamentalists. I think the country achieved the correct balance during the postwar years (especially 50s-60s), when the government did more to protect middle class solvency from wild west speculators, that is, I support financial markets being protected by things like Glass-Stegal, and I am amazed that the right has cultivated a group of people who have never studied economics in a rigorous academic context... but who categorically reject all regulations. They have literally been educated by the machine, which is a well funded network of think tanks, publishing companies, and media outlets designed to turn public opinion against any regulation which limits their highly concentrated "too-big-to-fail" leverage over government and the economy.

̈0
B
̈ ̈
∂k δ ∂x ¡¡ !
∂(kx) δ δ ∂x k ∂k δ ∂k x ̈ δ
∂x
̈
+ +
= + (14)
̈ ̈
¡
∂δ kx ∂δ k ∂δ x ∂k x ∂δ k ∂x k ∂δ x
̈
¡
EEδ DE
¡ δ SEδ
∂(kx) α ∂k α ∂x α ∂x k ∂k α ∂k x ∂x α
= + + + (15)
∂α kx ∂α k ∂α x ∂k x ∂α k ∂x k ∂α x
EEα DEα SEα

An interior intersection of k ∗ (x) and x∗ (k) occurs if:
1. x∗ (0) ≥ k ∗−1 (0), that is, if the x-intercept of x∗ (k) is weakly above the x-intercept of
k ∗ (x);
dx∗ (k) ∗
> 0, dkdx > 0 over all the relevant range; and
(x)
2. dk
dx∗ (k)
1
3. > .
dk∗ (x)/dx dk
dk ∗ (x) πx /k − kxS (kx)
=
−πkk
dx
∗
dx (k) xS (kx)
= .
dk πxx /k

Yes, what is my reply to this, its over my head, you win, this proves how vital our purchase of plastic trash cans, Hot Wheel cars, and tennis shoes really are to our vital, economic interest. I think its pretty much common sense and logic yet how do I explain this to you when you believe you found something of relevance, the only thing you have posted in regards to Walmart is that shitty professors at the Universities are wasting our tax money to feed us bullshit.

I must now finish evaluating the equations to see if they equal zero, which only proves a theory, outside the classroom there are variables not represented by the intersection of "dx".

I finished, added this as an edit, now for godsake, what in the hell do you think this report shows?