Herman Cain Warns China Is Seeking ‘Nuclear Capability’

[Caliga]

I think Cain just mispoke. But he's really not ready for prime time. He seems to have little knowledge or basis in domestic economic policy, and he jokes about his lack of foreign polich knowledge. He'll be done for when he goes against any knowledgeable candidate, GOP or Dem. I'm really at a loss as to how he's one of the leaders in the GOP candidates.  He's a decent guy with a good sounding message but I feel he'll fade quickly enough as people understand that he's not too well informed, and we just don't need that as President.

I don't understand it either... I think it might just be because he's amusing.

[Sheilbh]

I don't understand it either... I think it might just be because he's amusing.

I think it's a function of how much some Republicans don't want to vote for Romney.  It must be upsetting for Santorum that the possibly insane Congresswoman from Minnesota and the Pizza guy are seen as more serious challengers

[DGuller]

What strikes me as ridiculous is the notion that the US can and should outgrow China in terms of GDP.

China is an underdeveloped country with much of the population living in poverty.  The US is the most developed country in the world.  There's no way the US can outperform China - it's all a question of how does the US manage a growing China.

The US can certainly outgrow China in absolute and per-capita terms.  Why it would want to do so (give the likely environmental, political, and social costs) is, of course, the better question in your post.

I don't think it can.  There are limits to per-capita growth that you can hit after you employ most of the potential inputs, and further per-capita growth can come mainly productivity improvements.  It's hard to get productivity to grow at more than 3% per year over the long term, and even that is shooting for the moon.

Which brings me to something that I always found a little silly.  Why is it that the economy is good when it's growing quickly, and bad when it's growing slowly?  Isn't that kind of focusing on the journey, and not the end goal? 

I realize that given the constant productivity growth, the economic growth has to keep up to keep people employed, and it's unemployment that's causing misery, but still I think that too much emphasis is placed on the movement, and not enough pondering is done about where the fuck we are winding up.

[DGuller]

I'm really at a loss as to how he's one of the leaders in the GOP candidates.

They all get a turn.  I think we still have Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul to go through as fresh alternatives to Romney.

[grumbler]

I don't think it can.  There are limits to per-capita growth that you can hit after you employ most of the potential inputs, and further per-capita growth can come mainly productivity improvements.  It's hard to get productivity to grow at more than 3% per year over the long term, and even that is shooting for the moon.

True for China as well as the US.

You aren't actually arguing that the US cannot outgrow China on an absolute or per capita basis, just that it would be hard.  Which, of course, was exactly my point with which you thought you were disagreeing! 

[DGuller]

True for China as well as the US.

No, it's not.  China is expanding because it has a lot of potential still unfulfilled.  US is much closer to the ceiling.

You aren't actually arguing that the US cannot outgrow China on an absolute or per capita basis, just that it would be hard.

I am, actually.  Sustained productivity growth at 6-8% would be impossible for a US economy to achieve. 

Which, of course, was exactly my point with which you thought you were disagreeing! 

I was actually disagreeing with that point.  To imply that it's possible for me to not disagree with the argument that US can grow per-capita GDP faster than China is very insulting.

[alfred russel]

I'm really at a loss as to how he's one of the leaders in the GOP candidates.

They all get a turn.  I think we still have Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul to go through as fresh alternatives to Romney.

Is Romney going to be the new Guiliani? So far as they all trade places as the "serious" challenger to Romney, Romney is staying at about the same spot in the polls, say ~25%.

When the alternatives drop out and this becomes a 2 person race, is Romney going to be able to go over 50%? I guess Cain will collapse, but I doubt many of his supporters will be predisposed to support Romney. At the same time, I would think the 25% supporting Romney are the more moderate, and thus less zealous, Republicans, and probably less likely to turn out for caucuses or primaries.

[Ideologue]

I realize that given the constant productivity growth, the economic growth has to keep up to keep people employed, and it's unemployment that's causing misery, but still I think that too much emphasis is placed on the movement, and not enough pondering is done about where the fuck we are winding up.

My two cents: it's because serious utopian thinking is out of fashion.  End of history and all.

[DGuller]

I'm really at a loss as to how he's one of the leaders in the GOP candidates.

They all get a turn.  I think we still have Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul to go through as fresh alternatives to Romney.

Is Romney going to be the new Guiliani? So far as they all trade places as the "serious" challenger to Romney, Romney is staying at about the same spot in the polls, say ~25%.

When the alternatives drop out and this becomes a 2 person race, is Romney going to be able to go over 50%? I guess Cain will collapse, but I doubt many of his supporters will be predisposed to support Romney. At the same time, I would think the 25% supporting Romney are the more moderate, and thus less zealous, Republicans, and probably less likely to turn out for caucuses or primaries.

It also depends on the timing of the jokers dropping out.  Republican primaries are generally first past the post type of affairs, which means that that even 25% may be good enough for Romney to get a big lead, if there are enough bozos still left to split the vote.

[Eddie Teach]

Is Romney going to be the new Guiliani? So far as they all trade places as the "serious" challenger to Romney, Romney is staying at about the same spot in the polls, say ~25%.

When the alternatives drop out and this becomes a 2 person race, is Romney going to be able to go over 50%? I guess Cain will collapse, but I doubt many of his supporters will be predisposed to support Romney. At the same time, I would think the 25% supporting Romney are the more moderate, and thus less zealous, Republicans, and probably less likely to turn out for caucuses or primaries.

McCain ended up being the more palatable of the "moderate" choices last time(Romney was considered to be challenging him from the right, as health care wasn't on the radar then).

Romney does have one point in his favor. Right now, none of his opponents look strong against Obama. Perry did when he entered, but he's handled his campaign poorly so far.

[alfred russel]

It also depends on the timing of the jokers dropping out.  Republican primaries are generally first past the post type of affairs, which means that that even 25% may be good enough for Romney to get a big lead, if there are enough bozos still left to split the vote.

The problem I see for Romney is that it seems to me that this time there is Romney as a plausible candidate and a bunch of jokers, with Perry as a somewhat hybrid figure. Perry seems to be a natural home for the joker vote if he can hold it together.

Last time the field did reduce: eventually to McCain vs. Huckabee. McCain was too "left wing" for a lot of the joker vote, but he at least had a strong military background and history as a republican. Romney just has a history as a Massachusetts Republican (read: basically a Democrat) and a rich Wall Street guy.

[alfred russel]

McCain ended up being the more palatable of the "moderate" choices last time(Romney was considered to be challenging him from the right, as health care wasn't on the radar then).

Romney does have one point in his favor. Right now, none of his opponents look strong against Obama. Perry did when he entered, but he's handled his campaign poorly so far.

But Romney is never going to really attract much of the right wing vote because he is so transparently phony with his right wing stances. In the Republican primary world where McCain in 2008 was a "moderate", the choice for conservatives was between a candidate saying the right things but was clearly pandering (Romney) vs. a guy that didn't always say the right things but was a war hero and stand up guy.

[grumbler]

No, it's not.  China is expanding because it has a lot of potential still unfulfilled.  US is much closer to the ceiling.

So China can grow at its current rate forever?  I doubt that.

You aren't actually arguing that the US cannot outgrow China on an absolute or per capita basis, just that it would be hard.

I am, actually.  Sustained productivity growth at 6-8% would be impossible for a US economy to achieve. [/quote]
So because it cannot have sustained growth at rates of 6-8% indefinitely, it is impossible for the US to outgrow China on an absolute basis and   it is impossible for the US to outgrow China on a per capita basis in any timeframe whatever?

That is seriously what you are arguing?

I was actually disagreeing with that point.  To imply that it's possible for me to not disagree with the argument that US can grow per-capita GDP faster than China is very insulting.

You are insulted by the truth?  Bummer.  Is it all truths that you find insulting, or just some of them?

[Sheilbh]

Romney does have one point in his favor. Right now, none of his opponents look strong against Obama. Perry did when he entered, but he's handled his campaign poorly so far.

I wonder if the economy could impact on this too.  If there's a sense that it's improving the GOP will go for an 'electable' candidate, if it keeps going as it is now then they think Obama's doomed so they can vote their hearts.

I think Perry may get a second wind, possibly.  Also I think Gingrich could come back.

[DGuller]

So China can grow at its current rate forever?  I doubt that.

Is this one of those infamous grumbler gotchas, where the argument hinges on ignoring simplifying common sense assumptions? 

Of course China can't grow at the current rate forever, and maybe in 2100 both US and China will be at rougly the same level of potential that other factors would drive the relative growth rates.  However, the context of this discussion is rooted in Cain's comments about what US economy can do under better leadership, and he's running for the 2013-2017 term.

So because it cannot have sustained growth at rates of 6-8% indefinitely, it is impossible for the US to outgrow China on an absolute basis and   it is impossible for the US to outgrow China on a per capita basis in any timeframe whatever?

That is seriously what you are arguing?

Again, are you arguing on substance, or is what you're getting at sort of like "on one day, US economy can actually grow faster than China's economy".  Sustained just means something that's not a spike, but a clear trend.

You are insulted by the truth?  Bummer.  Is it all truths that you find insulting, or just some of them?

Is that the truth?  I think I know what I can agree with and what I can't agree with.  The argument I think you're trying to make (although of course you can be playing a gotcha game and claim that you were making some other possibly trivial argument) is so stupid that I know for a fact I can't agree with it.  That is the truth, I do know that I can't agree with it.