Obama Essential for the World?

One of the guy's I work with said that "Obama was essential for the World as a whole!" (or words to the effect) and the idea has been running through my mind every since. What would the effect of Obama's election be on the rest of the world? He's for change sure, but what change? Would it be for the better or for the worse?

Let's have a look at Obama's policies on two key issues, and examine whether they'd be good or bad for the world.


Obama plans to raise taxes on rich people, as in anyone middle class or higher. Now I'm sure Obama hasn't come right out and said it, but he plans to implement a whole heap of policies that will cost the government more money. That money has to come from somewhere, and Obama isn't going to be looking to cut funding to any Government departments. What about cutting funds to the military I hear you say. Well, Obama wants to put together a "Civilian National Security Force" with the same sort of funding as the current military. So even if Obama cuts the funding to the military to nothing, he's still missing the money needed for public health care, increased welfare, tax breaks for the lower class, and the such. This money has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is middle and upper class America.

Now I guess some of you are wondering why the rest of the world should care if Obama raises taxes. Raising taxes decreases the amount of excess money rich people have. Rich people's excess money is what drives our modern economy, either directly or indirectly. Directly in that rich people buy stuff, lots of stuff, and indirectly in the form of loans. You know that loan you just took out to buy a new car, well the only reason the bank had the money to loan you is rich people gave some of their excess money to the bank to look after. Most startups are entirely funded by rich peoples excess money.

You know your job? Well, the only reason you still have it is because rich people have excess money. If they didn't they'd be competing with you for the job instead of spending their money, either directly or indirectly, on your companies products. Meaning there would be less jobs to go round, and more people competing for them.

Rich people having excess money is the foundation of our modern economy. Rich people having less excess money means the economy suffers, and nearly everyone suffers with it. Now, as the recent "credit crisis" has aptly demonstrated, what's bad for America's economy is bad for the world's economy.

Ergo, raised taxes in America is bad for the rest of the world. QED

War and Terrorism

Well now we're on a big one. Obama wants to withdraw from Iraq immediately, and makes a big thing about how he thought the invasion of Iraq was a mistake from the beginning. What effect does an America President who withdraws before victory has been achieved and who won't get into any further wars have on the rest of the world?

Well, lets have a look at Israel to start with. Israel is surrounded by enemies who outnumber her ten to one, the only reason she still stands is because America supports her. Israel's enemies are far from nice, these are the sort of people who think Hitler was a nice guy, and that terrorists blowing up Israeli school children is good reason to have a street party.

So, we've got the second holocaust as one potential consequence. Which surely all would agree was a bad thing. Now for sure, I'm not saying that it's guaranteed, or that it might not still happen even if Obama loses. I'm just saying that a victory by Obama significantly increases the chances.

What about Oil? I've already heard all the "No blood for oil!!!!" I care to, so don't waste your breath. What I'm talking about here is not cheap fuel for Americans. It's a little known fact that America gets only about 15% of her oil from the Middle East, and for that matter Australia is in much the same situation. This 15% deficit would be made up by opening up several of America's own oil deposits to drilling. So, the American government presumably thought a war, which are expensive in both money and lives, as well as being extremely politically unpopular, was a better choice then allowing a couple of new oil wells. I know a lot of people aren't real confident in Bush's intelligence, but nobody is that stupid, and [the democrat dominated] congress supported the war in Iraq as well. It simply can't have been for American fuel prices.

No, what I'm talking about here is guaranteeing the flow of oil to Europe. I can hear you wondering why the Americans get off deciding that they should sacrifice the lives of a bunch of Arabs and America soldiers for Europe. But, consider this: what would Europe do if it had no fuel because some petty Arab dictator decided he was going to hold the rest of the world's economy to ransom by cutting of the flow of shipping through the Persian Gulf?

Well, let me describe how Europeans get the majority of their food. First it's grown overseas (America is a big source) then it's transported on cargo boats, great big, fuel-guzzling, cargo boats, to ports in Europe. Now the food has made it to Europe, but most Europeans don't live right beside the ports, so it still has to be transported to their home cities. Guess what, that requires more fuel in the form of fuel-guzzling (again with the fuel-guzzling) semi-trailers to transport the food to the supermarkets. How does Europe get it's food without ready, easy access to oil?

Well, it doesn't, and guess what, very few people will peacefully starve to death, even in peace-loving Europe. This is where I get more unsure, does the EU get together and invade the Middle East, or does the whole thing collapse into civil war and famine? Who knows, but what I do know is that it wouldn't be pretty. Now again, I'm not saying it's a sure thing, but an overall worsening is almost guaranteed.

There's one final possibility that is weighs particularly on my mind, though again it's not a sure thing. Australia only survived the Second World War as a distinct, free nation as the result of America saving our skins. There are more than a few countries up in Asia that are over-populated, and severely lacking in natural resources, but still have the resources, mainly people, necessary to raise large armies. It would be unreasonable to believe that not one of these countries would appreciate the chance to have wide spaces and considerable natural resources of Australia for their own.

Date: 2008-11-01 23:03:56, 9 years and 140 days ago

Leave reply

No html allowed in reply

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.