Not sure your argument stacks up very well.

Your comments about free trade I can understand as I appreciate you and Jackart come from such an extreme anarcho-liberatarian standpoint.

There has never been free trade under any administration, neither in the US nor Europe. Obama and the Democrats do seem keen to get more people 'buying American' but this is hardly surprising considering the economic situation.

The subsidies the US and Europe pour into their agriculture industries are absurd, the trade barriers preventing African and Asian agriculture huge and the massive amount of aid then poured into poverty stricken areas which can't sell their produce, all this creates a very good argument why proper free trade is a good idea.

But also a demonstration why it is a political impossibility.

The Churchill bust was only a loan, made after September 11, and now is happily installed in Sir Nigel Sheinwald's pad.

And this afternoon it has been announced Gordon Brown will address both houses of Congress when he visits Washington next week - the first European leader to see Obama since his inauguration.

Brown will only be the fifth Prime Minister to have been accorded such an honour after Winston Churchill, Clement Atlee, Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair.

Not much evidence of an anti-British president just yet then.

While I don't necessarily beleive that Obama is snubbing Britain, the reality is that the United States has acted and will continue to act exclusively in their own interests regardless. There is no US political action I can think of in their history that demonstrates otherwise. This is not to say also that I crticise them for it, it was afterall a policy rooted in the conscience of the founders, but for some reason some cleave to the idea of America the partner and protector. As someone who has spent much of his working life in the States, I have always found it ironic that the Brits tend to be much more sentimental about our shared history than they are. While I have a love of many aspects of American culture and thinking I have learned not to confuse the natural friendliness between our two countries as anything more and I think it is a grave error to make this presumption when conducting business, let alone foreign policy. Doing otherwise has been very costly to both to our economy and defensive capabilities over the past 70 years.

That helicopter contract was total stupidity, it would be completely financially irresponsible to follow through on it. Where would that money have gone? From the US to whose hands?

Yes, he's trying to save the American economy -- your leaders should focus on doing something similar for yours, instead of continuously whinging about who started it.


That said, Obama did fuck up majorly with the new pick for ambassador to the UK. That was clearly old school politics, which he claims to have no part in.

Good post - I remember how in WWII the Brits got a load of the American P-38s to arm their squadrons - but WITHOUT superchargers (as those were 'classified' at the time.)

Needless to say, the P-38s were useless without them, slower than Bob Hope on dope.

Isabella,
"When goods do not cause frontiers, armies will". - Claude Bastiat. Look up the Candlemakers petition. I disagree that our leaders should bow to kneejerk protectionism because we are in worldwide recession. Quite the opposite in fact as we see the results of protectionism from the great depression. "Where would the money have gone?" Trade is not a zero sum gain. You need a helicopter, America does not supply the best helicopter for the job required - you buy it elsewhere. Both sides gain by this transaction, America gets its helicopter, the UK the money. The UK then uses the money to buy goods and services that they are not as good at manufacturing and gain products they cannot produce themselves. With Protectionism and subsidy to inefficient sectors you not only waste (in this case taxpayers) money on an inferior product (opportunity costs), you also loose the skill of a worker who would generate more money producing a more profitable good for your economy.

The opposite is Mercantilism - which as Japan has shown, is not the best way to run your economy. You get temporary gains but loose in the long term as your economy becomes more schleritic. At its worst - as Bastiat said. You get an efficient producer annoyed he cannot use his natural advantage in producing goods invading another one to force equality and fairness on the other nation. I'm not saying that Europe is going to invade America because they won't buy their helicopters, but it simply creates barriers where there should not be any. This is just the economic theory, not the practical fact that the US is cancelling orders and ripping up signed agreements with the largest foreign investor in business terms in the US. Sure the Chinese are buying your T-bills, but the UK is traditionally the one buying businesses that give your workers jobs.

Roland,
As I understand it the P-38 Superchargers were deleted because the RAF insisted both the engines were mounted the same way to ease maintenance. It was the RAF that messed up the design - not the Americans.

North Britain Hunter - Agree with you on Agricultural Subsidy. Its immoral that Western policy regarding subsidy puts African farmers out of business and pushes them into starvation. Disagree with you on Brown of course.

Inexile. I actually think that America is not as mercenary as you say. There are numerous instances when America has done the right thing even though it is not necesarrily in their interests (their entry into WWI springs to mind, allowing the fall of the brutal but pro-US Somoza's in Nicaragua, Bosnia, Somalia etc). They have spent blood and treasure in the defence of freedom on numerous occasions when they could have quite happily ignored it. This is why US-UK foreign policy has been similar in most respects.

I do not say that they are necessarily mercenary. I just say that in anything I have deeper knowledge of, they have acted exclusively in their wider Geo-political interests. America is the power it is because of this. Britain is the power it is not because of this. In my understanding, their late entry into WWI was due to a string of German attacks on US possessions culminating in the belief that Germany would collude with Mexico against them if they won. In WWII, The US took full advantage of it's strategic position to accelerate the bankruptcy of Britain and leverage their position after that conflict. Bosnia was because of an abiding belief that it would cause regional instability and compromise US trade. Even in the Gulf, America's sole purposes have been rooted in a belief that a large US presence would aid US security and assert regional economic influence. Those are certainly the discussions mute walls in Washington could retell. The Sidewinder 9L confrontation in the Falklands was a another classic example of muddled US loyalties. I plead ignorance regards Nicaragua. It's not warm and fuzzy, but I don't criticize them for it.

Travelgall, the original cost of the ordered fleet of helicopters was supposed to be about half of what it now is. I say again, it would be financially irresponsible to go through with that contract -- and I think you know that the goods don't go to the US, they go to the President, and the money doesn't go to the UK it goes to a select few in form of bonuses, bribes and other things which ALL governments and businessmen use at that level of trade. Your country doesn't even put money to good use when it's forked over to the banks -- How many 6 figure bonuses did bank executives get after they were bailed out? That will do the people some good, eh? Fabulous for the economy, as long as those execs love to shop.

As for your protectionism comment, where did that come from? I said that your leaders should stop whinging about how the problem started and get to work leading you out of the quagmire. I never said how they should do that.

Isabella,
You refered to Obama trying to "Save the American Economy". Correct me if I'm wrong but I assumed you meant by "Buying American" and waving a flag. Rather than buying what is best value for the US taxpayer. As I said you could argue about the merits of the Helicopter purchase "It could be easily argued that there is a better use of Military cash than to spend it on a flying limousine for a politician". Hovever the point remains, were they American manufactured Helicopters that the US government was buying, rather than Anglo-Italian ones then believe me we would not be having this discussion. The amount of Pork flying around in the Stimulus bill would cover a helicopter for every member of government down to the Janitor at Yellowstone Mational Park. I say again, the reason why this order was cancelled was because it was "foreign" and they didn't want to be seen spending money on foreign workers when Americans could build the product. If that isn't Protectionism I don't know what is.

Regarding the cost over-runs, if you could point me in the direction of one US DOD contract that DIDN'T over-run I would be impressed.

So the Helicopters are going to the President rather than the US. Correct me if I'm wrong but as your Head of State and Commander in Chief I could hardly find a better example of "US". Besides, even if it was a Frenchman selling Brie and Garlic flavoured toothpaste in the United States which was only bought by French Tourists it would still count as trade between two countries. And if a senator banned the product on Health grounds it would still count as protectionism.

Regarding bribes to get the Helicopter contract, that's something that Boeing did - and got thrown out of the Tanker Aircraft contract as a result. Blair encouraged the US government to accept the bid, but no money changed hands. Indeed the US government fines and jails people who try and bribe government officials (as they did in the case of Boeing). I'm sure the bidder did Lobby the US government, but the fact is that they came up with the best product for the specification. Now usually what the US does when it comes to defence contracts is move the goal posts until only a US firm can win. I don't know why they didn't this time, but you can't accuse others of using illegal methods that only US companies have so far been caught doing.

As for your Argumentum Ad hominem about banking bonuses, I'm sorry but you're arguing that the money won't be put to good use? In that case why have any trade at all with Britain, or Canada or Mexico - those pesky Cannucks and Beaners spending all their money on hockey pucks/sombreros. Why not just mine your borders? I'm criticising the States because they should bloody well know better. Free trade made America rich.

Okay, so I'm correcting you; that's not what I meant. I meant he's doing something that he thinks will work. No one knows what the fuck is really going to work, but at least he's really trying. I'm not even an Obama fan, I just sympathize with the scale of his political inheritance.

That, and I despise men who whine or waste time blaming others (regardless if the blame is justified) when that time could be better put to use doing something.

re helicopters: I actually do believe that we wouldn't be having this discussion, but only because you wouldn't care if he broke an American contract -- which I think would have been just as possible. McCain is like a teenaged boy in search of pussy;he's too eager to rub the shine off of Obama and he'll do it anyway he can.

Blair sucked up to Bush royally to get that contract awarded. That alone makes it skeevy and should make people question the situation. And while I'm on the subject, would you be saying this about breaking other contract that Bush made if they were done in a similar manner? Or only those directly benefit a half-British company?

I'm sure that many contracts have exceeded original estimates, but how many of them were by that much in this economy for something as ridiculous as a fleet of helicopters created for one man? Maybe there are lots. Go on and show me; I'll take it all back.

No, the president is not the US and that logic is incredibly flawed for someone of your intelligence and political view. If you really think that, you must have also thought Imelda's shoes were a fortune well spent in the name of her country, as they probably got far more use than a fleet of helicopters will.

And I wasn't talking about specific bribes -- bribes are exchanged every day at every level of business and government whether they are blatant or otherwise. And yes, I'm absolutely saying that that money wouldn't have been put to very good use. Again, maybe I'm wrong. You tell me where you think it would have gone. Specifically. How exactly would it have trickled down? I think the bulk would have gone to executives and

And regardless of all this, Spending incredible amounts of money on things like helicopter fleets (FLEET!! How many can he use at once, for fuck's sake?) when millions of people can't feed their children is unbelievably stupid. Why not just invite all those families to White House to watch millions be put through a shredder. At least then they'd get to participate in their tax dollars being wasted.

PS You forgot to thank me for your pretty signature. ;-)

While on the subject of British aviation and aircraft, has anyone else noticed that the last flying, Avro Vulcan XH558, will be grounded on 6th March if enough pledges aren't raised?
http://www.tvoc.co.uk for details.

They also have a petition going to Number 10 to try and get some government funds.